1. - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 4.7.2002 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 319 Cr.P.C has been dismissed summarily.

2. The facts as narrated in the petitioner are that on 19.3.2001, the complainant -petitioner lodged a report at P.S. Laxmangarh stating therein that the marriage of his daughter was solemnized with the accused Ranveer Singh on 18.3.2001 and after some time he received information that his daughter is ill and when he reached at the home of the accused-petitioner, he was informed that his daughter Vimla has expired due to drowning. On this F.I.R, F.I.R. No. 62/2001 was registered with the Police Station, Laxmangarh. The police submitted charge-sheet only against one accused person Ranveer Singh under Sections 498A and 304-B Indian Penal Code The petitioner moved an application under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code for taking cognizance" against other accused persons, which was dismissed on the ground that the matter of taking cognizance will be decided at the stage of Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code Thereafter, during the course of trial, after the statements of the eyes witnesses were recorded the petitioner moved an application under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code for taking cognizance against the accused-respondents but the learned trial Court did not pass any order and the application was kept pending until the final judgment was passed and after final judgment was passed, the application was rejected without any consideration summarily. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order.

4. The contention of the present petitioner is that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in flouting the provisions contained in Section 139 Criminal Procedure Code by not giving any finding and the learned trial Court' has not decided the application till the last stage of judgment.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that when the matter has been finally decided and one accused person has been convicted for the offence tinder Section 306 Indian Penal Code and now the trial is not pending, no cognizance can be taken against other persons.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Shasliiknnt Singli v. Tarkeshzoar Singh & Anr., (2002) 5 SCC 738 , wherein it has been held as under.

"The intention of Section 319 is that where in the course of any enquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears to the Court from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence, the Court may proceed against him for the offence which he appears to have committed. At that stage, the Court would consider that such a person could be tried together with the accused who is already before the Court facing the trial. The safeguard provided in respect of such person is that, the proceedings right from the beginning have mandatorily to be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard. In short, there has to be a de novo trial against him. The provision of de novo trial is mandatory. It vitally affects the rights of a person so brought before the Court. It would not be sufficient to only tender the witnesses for the cross-examination of such a person. They have to be examined afresh. Fresh examination in chief and not only their presentation for the purpose of the cross- examination of the newly added accused is the mandate of Section 319(4). The words 'could be tried together with the accused' in Section 319(1), appear to be only directory. "Could be" cannot under these circumstances be held to be "must be". The provision cannot be interpreted to mean that since the trial in respect of a person who was before the Court has concluded with the result that the newly added person cannot be tried together with the accused who was before the Court when order tinder Section 319(1) was passed, the order would bec