Jitendra Kumar, J.—The present Criminal Revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 18.01.2020, passed by learned Trial Court F.T.C-I, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 122 of 2012, whereby the petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.PC for facing the trial.

2. The prosecution case as emerging from the written report dated 04.04.2009 given by the informant to the Officer Incharge of G.B. Nagar, Police Station, Siwan, is that the accused Keshav Mishra, Devendra Mishra, Drauptai Kunwar and Anup Mishra set fire to the hut like house of the informant where he was shifting his household items after demolishing his old house. The house got burnt. At the time of burning of the house, his brother and son were present. Four new cycles, big boxes, hundred sacks of grains, paddy and wheat, sewing machine, pumping sets, thrasher and other items worth Rs.4-5 lacs got destroyed. The accused persons fled away after setting fire to his house.

3. On the basis of the written report, Barhariya P.S. Case No. 44 of 2009 was lodged on 05.04.2009 against four accused persons, namely, Keshav Mishra, Devendra Mishra, Drauptai Kunwar and Anup Mishra for offence punishable under Section 436 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against one of the accused persons, namely, Keshav Mishra and the rest accused persons were exonerated by the police.

4. During course of trial, three prosecution witnesses viz., Shivnath Sah, Babunand Mishra and Lalbabu Mishra were examined and after their examination, one application was moved by the prosecution for summoning the rest accused persons, who are petitioners herein, the application was allowed by learned Trial Court by the impugned order, summoning the petitioners to stand trial along with the accused who was already facing the trial. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition.

5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. However, nobody is present on behalf of O.P. No. 2.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

7. To substantiate his submissions, he further submits that the petitioners were named accused in the FIR, but after investigation, they were found to be innocent and hence, no charge-sheet was submitted against them and, as such, they are beyond the reach of Section 319 Cr.PC because they were already accused and, hence, Section 319 Cr.PC will not applicable against them and they cannot be summoned. As such, learned Trial Court has erroneously summoned the petitioners to face the trial on the basis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses recorded during trial. He refers to and relies upon the judgment dated 26.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Shivjee Singh vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (Cr.Misc. No. 31020 of 2016).

8. He also submits that even the standard of evidence as required for summoning an accused under Section 319 Cr.PC is not there in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

9. However, learned APP for the State defends the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioners were not charge-sheeted and hence, they could be summoned under Section 319 Cr.PC on the basis of the Prosecution evidence which had come during trial.

10. I considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the materials on record.

11. Before I consider the rival submissions of the parties, it would be pertinent to examine the scope and ambit of the power of the Courts under Section 319 Cr.PC which reads as follows:—

“319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.—(1) Where, in