1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners challenging the order dated 25.6.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions judge, Nagaur in Criminal Revision No. 71/2008 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 30.6.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Nagaur in Criminal Case No. 175/2004 summoning the petitioners as additional accused.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2/complainant filed an F.I.R. at the P.S. Sri Balaji on 25.8.2002 alleging inter alia that 13 persons including 2 petitioners assaulted the first informant Prem Sukh and caused him numerous injuries. The allegation made by Prem Sukh as per the F.I.R. was against Hadmanram regarding having caused barchi blow on his head and against other also having beaten him indiscriminately. On the conclusion of investigation, the police chose not to file charge-sheet against the petitioners whereas other accused were charge-sheeted.

3. Initially, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved on 4.1.2007 seeking summoning of the present petitioners as additional accused in the case. The learned trial Court by order dated 30.6.2008 accepted the application filed by the prosecution and directed summoning of the accused persons as additional accused for the offences under. Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 341 I.P.C. The aforesaid order was challenged by filing revision and the revision Court too has affirmed the order of the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition has been preferred assailing the orders of the Courts below.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. K.L. Thakur appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in this case, the evidence which has been led by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed grave error in summoning the petitioners as additional accused in this case. It is submitted that both the petitioners are Government servants and deliberately their name has been roped in the case so that their service may be affected. It is also submitted that by now much evidence has been recorded at the trial and, therefore, the entertainment of the application for summoning additional accused by the learned trial Judge was absolutely uncalled for. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Michael Machado and another v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2000 SCC (Cri.) 609 . He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court as affirmed by the learned revisional Court summoning the petitioners as additional accused deserve to be quashed.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submit that the prosecution has filed the application in the year 2003 at the earliest available opportunity and the learned trial Court kept the said application pending and the delay was not attributable to the prosecution. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the first application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant was rejected on 12.7.2006 because only one witness had been examined by that time and the learned trial Court gave liberty to the prosecution to file a fresh application after recording of some more evidence. Thereafter, the statements of material witnesses were recorded including that of the injured Prem Sukh. He further submits that in the statements of the first informant's wife Sayari and the injured Prem Sukh, a specific allegation has been made regarding the petitioner Hadmanram having caused a barchi blow on the head of Prem Sukh and regarding petitioner Gordhan Ram having caused injury by Jei. The version of the prosecution regarding participation of these two persons was consistent right from the initial stage and, therefore, it is submitted that the well reasoned order of the learned trial Court, as affirmed