ORDER :

The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

The newly added third accused is the revision petitioner herein. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred by the petitioner against the order passed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taking congnizance against the petitioner in a case of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2015 in S.C.No.61 of 2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The respondent/Inspector of Police, Bargur police station, Krishnagiri District, has registered a case against the first accused namely Ansar and the second accused namely Balan in Crime No.370 of 2009 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Officer, has filed a final report against those two accused.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

[i] On 24.07.2009 at about 9.30 p.m., the first accused Ansar and the second accused Balan and the deceased Periyadurai went to a Liquor shop near S.K.Dhaba on the By-pass road in Bargur in the Autorickshaw of one Annamalai (L.W.14). After consuming liquor, as they were returning home in the same auto, the first accused took a sum of Rs.2,000/- from the pocket of the deceased and as a result of which, there was a quarrel amongst them.

[ii] After sometime, the said Periyadurai was found dead on the rocks on the foothills of Balamurugan temple on the Eastern side of Jagadevi. The complaint was lodged by P.W.1-Deverajan, Village Administrative Officer of Bargur.

[iii] After following the formalities, the case was numbered as S.C.No.61 of 2010 by the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri and made over to the learned First Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri and the matter was posted for examination of the prosecution witnesses.

[iv] On 22.07.2015, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and the petitioner was examined as P.W.2. After completion, a petition in Crl.M.P.No.86 of 2015 was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to add P.W.2 as accused and on 23.07.2015, the trial Court summoned the petitioner, who was detained on passing the impugned order arraigning the petitioner as an accused scrapping his evidence.

[v] The petition filed by the learned Public Prosecutor was allowed and P.W.2 was re-arrayed as third accused, based upon the chief examination of P.Ws.4 and 5. On perusing the order, I find that neither any summons have been issued nor any explanation or counter has been obtained from him before arraying the revision petitioner/P.W.2 as A.3. It appears from the records that he was remanded on the same day.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/A.3 would submit that the revision petitioner/Arulmozhi Devan was originally examined as P.W.2 in the Sessions Case No. 61 of 2010 and he was arrayed as accused No.3 and thereafter, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were examined. Based upon the mere assertion of P.W.4/Nirmala Preethi, who claims that she is the step daughter of the deceased, on the next day, learned Sessions Judge appears to have called P.W.2/Arulmozhi Devan and remanded him, without even issuing summons or notice to him.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that the provision of Section 319 of Cr.P.C was not properly followed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel also draw my attention to the evidence of P.W.4 & P.W.5, who are listed witnesses Nos.13 & 18. Further, the learned counsel would also draw my attention to the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C given by P.W.4 and P.W.5 as L.W.13 & L.W.18 before the Investigating Officer to say that the said allegation is nothing but an improvement.

6. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that it is a case of murder for gain and placed his reliance upon the circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.2 to 5 were examined on the same day. Based upon the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.2 was arrayed as accused No