Point of Law:
if prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies court that those who have not been arraigned accused or against whom proceedings quashed have also committed offence, court can take cognizance against them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and try them along with other accused.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.

1. The present revision is moved to seek interference of court in the impugned order dated 31.7.2019 on the ground of illegality, irregularity and arbitrariness committed by the Trial Judge in S.T No.467/2016, Crime Case No. 299/2016 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 307 and 302 I.P.C. in Police Station-Jamo, District Amethi (State of U.P. Vs. Shivendra Pratap Singh & Anr.) allowing the application of informant of the case under Section 319 Cr.P.C. By the said order the revisionist, proposed accused is summoned for trial along with the other named accused in the First Information Report of the incidence and charge-sheeted by the police after investigation.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri S.P. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist (the proposed accused), learned counsel Sri S.K. Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant and for prosecution, learned A.G.A Sri Abhay Kumar, Advocate.

3. The crux of the argument delivered by learned counsel Sri S.P. Singh are that-

i. The presence of accused at the spot of the crime is not established satisfactorily by cogent and material evidence before the court.

ii. Though, the name of accused was given in FIR but so far as the materials and evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, there is no evidence on record against the revisionist to show him committing any offence.

iii. The Investigating Officer dropped the name of revisionist and submitted the charge sheet to the Magistrate for cognizance of offence against remaining accused persons named in the FIR.

iv. That even the evidence recorded by the court is also not satisfactory and sufficient to establish the presence of the accused on the spot of the crime when it was committed.

4. In support of above arguments, learned counsel took reliance on the case laws propounded in Sunil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. with Khusbu Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2019 (2) JIC 64 SC, Labhuji Amratji Thakor & Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat & Anr. arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6392 of 2018, Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. with connected matters reported in 2014 (1) JIC 539 (SC), Raja Ram @ Raj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2019 (2) JIC 139 (All), Rajol & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in 2010 (2) JIC 920 (All), Brijendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2017 SC 2839 and Sugreev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab. He argued that though a person may be called upon by trial judge in the course of trial and the court concerned is empowered by the statute itself to do so but this power is not arbitrary, it is to be governed by the provisions of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. strictly and under the guidelines laid down by the superior courts. He submitted that in the present case the learned trial judge resiled from the principle and norms laid down by the superior courts while exercising it's power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to call upon the revisionist for participation in trial along with other accused.

5. Learned counsel prays that the impugned order under revision should be examined in the light of the above decisions and be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant Sri S.K. Singh, Advocate, drew the attention towards the averment made into first information report which clearly indicates not only the presence but the role assigned by the complainant to the proposed accused/revisionist. Secondly, so far as the evidence to be taken into consideration by the Court while exercising it's power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., it is well defined not only under Section 319 Cr.P.C. but also by the decisions even cited by the revisionist, that even the examination-in-chief is sufficient if it satisfactorily proves the presence and role of accused in the crime. Complainant himself got examined on oath as PW-1 and his statement recorded by the court itself in support of contents of the first