Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 7.4.2001 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in sessions Trial no. 59 of 1999 petitioner has preferred this revision application. By the said order, warrant of arrest has been issued to the petitioner to face the trial, in exercise of power under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. On the basis of a report given by one Shashi Kant Singh, Mashrak RS. Case No. 38 of 1998 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Petitioner has been named as one of the accused. Police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against one Chandra Shekhar Singh showing other accused as absconders. So far as this petitioner is concerned, the investigation has been entrusted to the Criminal Investigation Department and the same is still at the stage of investigation. Charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act have been framed against the charge sheeted accused Chandra Shekhar Singh and another accused. In the trial, witnesses were examined and when the matter was taken up on 7.4.2001, the learned Judge passed the following order.

"It appears from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses Tarkeshwar Singh, Manoj Singh and Ragho Singh have committed the offence of murder of Shva Kant Singh. These persons are not facing trial in this case together with the accused. These persons can be tried together with the accused. Issue warrant of arrest against the aforesaid persons."

3. Against the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred the present revision application. During the pendency of this revision application, the learned Judge concluded the trial of other accused persons and by judgment dated 16th of July, 2001, convicted them for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. When the matter was taken up by this court on 24.7.2001, it was pointed out that on account of conclusion of the trial, order passed under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rendered illegal. This court accepted the contention of the petitioner in the following words.

"In that way definitely section 319 Cr.P.C. could not be applicable which was applicable only in the pending cases where the other accused persons were facing trial. In that way also the impugned order is bad. Hence the order is without jurisdiction and the same is quashed. This order has been passed without giving notice to the opposite party no. 2 but after hearing the learned counsel for the State of Bihar as the order is without jurisdiction based on third point raised."

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the informant Shashi Kant Singh preferred Cr. Appeal No. 547 of 2002 and the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 24th of April [Shashikant Singh V/s. State of Bihar & Others (2002) 5 SCC 736] set aside the order of the High Court and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. While doing so, it observed as follows ;

"On facts, the court could not have intended while concluding the trial against Chandra Shekhar Singh, to nullify its earlier order directing issue of warrants against Respondent 1. The construction to be placed on a provision like this has to commend to justice and reason. The words "could be tried together with the accused" in section 319 (1) cannot be said to be capable of only one construction. If it was so, approach to be adopted would be different since the intention of Parliament is to be respected despite the consequences of interpretation. There is, however, a scope for two possible constructions. That being the position, a reasonable and common sense approach deserves to be adopted and preferred rather than a construction that would lead to absurd results of Respondent 1 escaping the trial despite passing of an order against him on the courts satisfaction under Section 319(1) and despite the fact that the proceedings against him have to commence afresh. In this view, the fact that trial against