Key Points: - The judgment discusses that criminal liability of a partner requires evidence that, at the time of the offence, the partner was in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm. (!) - It analyzes the scope of Section 319 to add other persons as accused if evidence shows they committed an offence that could be tried with the existing accused. (!) (!) - It emphasizes that the added person’s trial must be de novo, with fresh examination of witnesses, and start afresh from the beginning, under Section 319(4). (!) (!) - It states that the court must be satisfied on the additional evidence that the other person has committed an offence and could be tried with the existing accused. (!) - The court should consider the stage of trial and the quantum of evidence collected, and whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction against the newly added accused. (!) - It clarifies that evidence must be from the trial itself, not merely from the charge sheet or case diary, to justify adding a person under Section 319. (!) - It notes that the expressions "in the course of any inquiry into or trial" and "evidence" have to be addressed, especially regarding documents like firm registration copies and their relevance to the offence charged. (!) (!) - It states that the High Court's failure to consider essential aspects before invoking Section 319 can lead to setting aside an order adding accused. (!)

How to determine criminal liability of a partner in a firm when invoking section 319 of the Code?

What is the scope and conditions for adding co-accused under section 319 of the Code in a case involving a partnership firm?

What are the essential evidentiary and procedural requirements to exercise the power under section 319(4) when new accused are added?