1. Whether the accused, who is released under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be impleaded as the accused under Section 319 of the Code and in what manner the powers under Section 319 of the Code are to be exercised, are the questions involved in the present revision applications.

2. Since both these revision applications are filed challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 30.07.2018 below application at Exh.336 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2018, I have heard common arguments and I deem it appropriate to decide both the revision applications by common reasoning. One Criminal Revision Application bearing No.205 of 2018 is filed by original complainant, whereas another Criminal Revision Application No.235 of 2018 is filed by the State.

3. Application at Exh.336 was filed in Sessions Case No.23 of 2018, seeking impleadment of four persons namely Ananda Uttam Potphole, Kailash Baburao Potphole, Shivhar Tukaram Potphole and and Sangram Hanmant Potphole as accused in the aforesaid Sessions case by invoking provisions under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The prosecution filed the aforesaid application on the ground that in the testimony of two witnesses examined by the prosecution namely Ganpati Irappa Potphole and Manika Irappa Potphole, the witnesses have specifically deposed about the involvement of aforesaid four persons in the commission of alleged crime and has attributed specific overt-act against the said accused persons. The application at Exh.336 was opposed by the said persons, who were sought to be impleaded as accused, stating that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has reached to the conclusion that all the four persons were not present on the spot of occurrence of crime and were not having any involvement in commission of alleged crime and as such report under Section 169 of the Code was filed before the Magistrate and the same was accepted by the Magistrate.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution and the accused persons, rejected the said application vide the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the aforesaid two revisions applications are filed.

5. Shri S.M. Godsay, learned Counsel appearing for the original complainant submitted that merely because report under Section 169 of the Code pertaining to the respondents was accepted by the Magistrate, the request made by the prosecution for impleading the said persons as accused, cannot be rejected. The learned Counsel further submitted that since during the course of evidence, the involvement of the respondents was specifically revealed, there was no bar for impleading the said persons as accused by invoking the provisions under Section 319 of the Code.

6. Shri N.B.Suryawanshi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents i.e. the persons, who were sought to be impleaded as accused, resisted the submissions made on behalf of the revision applicants. Relying on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Brijendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan [(2017) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 706], the learned Counsel submitted that once report under Section 169 of the Code was accepted in the matter and when no more material was subsequently revealed against the persons in respect of whom the report under Section 169 was accepted by the Court, the said persons cannot be impleaded as the accused by invoking the provisions under Section 319 of the Code. The learned Counsel submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application filed by the prosecution below Exh.336 under Section 319 of the Code and no interference is warranted in the order so passed.

7. The material on record shows that First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Ganpati Irappa Potphole in regard to assaults made on deceased Digambar, deceased Narayan and Irappa, who was injured in the said incident. Sever