Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 23/07/2013 passed in Criminal Revision No. 112/2012 whereby learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur has affirmed the order dated 29/03/2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint case No. 206/2011 in which the said Court, by exercising the power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., has directed to add the present petitioners as accused for offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. In the application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. filed by respondents No. 1 & 2, learned trial Court converted the said application under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and directed registration of offence against respondent No. 3 i.e. Sunil Singh and one Shiv Narayan for offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC vide order dated 28/03/2011. Thereafter, no further and additional evidence could be recorded as case was not fixed for recording evidence. In the meanwhile, respondents No. 1 & 2 filed an application stating that cognizance be also taken against the present petitioners as they have also committed offence along with respondent No. 3 and Shiv Narayan as their names were inadvertently omitted from getting mentioned in the complaint, which the trial Court has allowed vide order dated 29/03/2012 holding that their involvement is also prima facie apparent from the material evidence on record and therefore, they also be added as accused persons. It was challenged in the revision petition but they remained unsuccessful.

3. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that trial Court is absolutely unjustified in directing the registration of offence and taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After registration of offence against respondent No. 3 & Shiv Narayan vide order dated 28/03/2011, no further evidence was recorded and therefore, Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. could not have been exercised by learned Judicial Magistrate. He further submits that learned Sessions Judge perpetuated illegality by affirming the said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. As such, the order dated 23/07/2013 is liable to be set aside.

4. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that prima facie material was already available which remained unnoticed by learned Judicial Magistrate while cognizance was taken against Respondent No. 3 & Shiv Narayan which was brought to the notice of the learned Judicial Magistrate by filing the application. Learned Judicial Magistrate also finding prima facie their involvement, directed for addition of the present petitioners as accused, which is strictly in accordance with law and thus, revisional Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the revision preferred by the petitioners.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2010) 1 SCC 250 has held as under :-

"16. Section 319 Cr.P.C. applies to all the Courts including the Sessions Court. It empowers the Court to add any person, not being the accused before it, but against whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with other accused. If such person is not attending the Court, he can be arrested or summoned. If he is attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, he can be detained by such Court for the purpose of inquiry into, or trial of the offence which he appears to have committed. Sub-section (4) lays down that where the Court proceeds against any person under subsection (1), the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and witnesses are reheard. "

7. Const