(2010)2 SCC (Cri) 355, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'power under Section 319 can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned in all likelihood would be convicted.' Leaned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon judgments in the case of Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2004(50) ACC 343 and in the case of Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohad. Rafiq and another, reported in 2007(58) ACC 254. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (2) SCC 696 (Lal Suraj alias Suraj Singh another Vs. State of Jharkhand) , in support of his contention. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (65) ACC 971 (Ram Singh and others Vs. Ram Niwas and another) , in which Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the event, it appears from the evidence that any person, not being an accused, has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, the court may proceed against him for the offence which he appears to have committed. It has been further held that the provision of Section 319, Cr.P.C. confers an extraordinary power upon a court to summon a person who, at the relevant time, was not being tried as an accused, subject, of course, to fulfilment of the condition that it appears to the court that he had committed an offence. A finding to that effect must be premised on the evidence that had been brought on record.
