( 1 ) SATNAMI Bai is a witness for the prosecution in Sessions Case No. 51/95. Her husband was allegedly killed during what have come to be known as 1984 riots. On January 15, 1996 she stated in her testimony that besides the accused persons facing the trial two more persons were also involved in the rioting, looting and killing of her husband. And, what is more, she specifically earned them. This led the Prosecutor to move an application for proceeding against them too. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, taking note of the statement, came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case of "rioting, killing and looting" against the said two. Consequently, taking recourse to section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he directed them to be brought before the court to face trial. Since one of them was already before the court, he was taken into custody. As against the other non- bailable warrants were issued. That other person is H. K. L. Bhagat, who finding the order unpalatable, hassled this criminal revision.

( 2 ) OUT of the seventeen paragraphs of the petition, the first four are autobiographical. We are told that the petitioner was a brilliant law student, a successful lawyer, a freedom fighter, and a fulfilled (?) politician climbing one ladder of success after the other. The next six relate to the riots of 1984 and to the different Committees appointed and registration of some cases including the one relating to the death of Satnami Bai s husband. The remaining, however, relate to the impugned order. The summum bonum of the remaining paragraphs is that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had taken the matter "lightly and casually" and had acted only on the basis of the examination-in-chief which "was totally unconvincing and highly unbelievable in as much as she was making the statement against a person who was holding a very important portfolio (Union Minister of I and B) at the relevant time"

( 3 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, the autobiographical account makes an impressive reading. The petitioner surely appears to have remained at the centre-stage of Indian polity. But then statement of a witness does not become "totally unconvincing" or "highly un- believable" merely because it is made against a person who was at one time holding a "very important portfolio". However, one thing is certain and it is that, irrespective of the personalities involved, the power under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised very sparingly.

( 4 ) IT was said, during arguments, that the learned trial judge ought to have analysed the statement of Satnami Bai more carefully. The grievance was that the entire approach to the statement, instead of being critical, was rather casual and that the Court ought to have taken note of the fact that neither in the First Information Report nor in her statements recorded under section 161 nor before any other forum had Satnami Bai ever named the petitioner, and that, in view of this, her statement ought to have been rejected as unworthy of reliance. However, the Supreme Court has held in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 339 that it is the "evidence recorded at the trial" which is to be looked into. Same view has been expressed again by the Supreme Court in Kishun Singh and others v. State of Bihar JT 1993 (1) SC 1773 wherein it was observed at page 183 of the report that the power can be "exercised only if it so appears from the evidence at the trial and not otherwise" and this being the position the grievance of the petitioner cannot be taken to be of any substance more so because the learned trial Judge has confined himself within the limit prescribed. In any case, let me make one thing clear. The learned trial Judge, at the stage when he passed the impugned order, was not required to evaluate or appraise the evidence with a view to assess whether it was sufficient for petitioners ultimate conviction. Going back once again to the judgments of the Supr