( 1 ) THE petitioner is the accused No. l in the Court below and he has challenged the order of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, dated 3-4-1987, passed on his file in Crl. M. P. No. 121/97 in C. C. No. 55/90. By the impugned order the petition filed by the petitioner requesting the Court to implead the witnesses PWs. 15 and 16 as the accused in the case has been rejected.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel Sri A. T. M. Rangaramanujam appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended !hat the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. On the other hand the Public Prosecutor supported the order.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary for me to note brief facts of the case. The petitioner and the other accused are charged for an offence punishable under Section 120-B, 409,468,471 and 201 of IPC in C. C. No. 55/90 on the file of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. After examination of about 38 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution the case was posted for the examination of the accused under Section313 of Cr. P. C. It is at that point of time this present petition is filed to implead PWs,15 and 16 as the accused in the case, contending that PWs. 15 and 16 during their evidence have admitted their complicity in the above offence. But, the Court below rejected that petition by holding that on the basis of their evidence, PWs. 15 and 16 cannot be impleaded as they have not committed any offence. It is in these circumstances, the present petition is filed by the A1.

( 4 ) IT is the prosecution case that A1 has committed the alleged offences by removing the fertilizer bags from the godown in husk bags and PW15 was the watchman of the said godown. It is stated that PW16 was a Watchman in Panchayat office and he used to Assist A1.

( 5 ) ON the basis of their evidence it is the contention of A1 that they should be also summoned as accused in the case on the basis or their evidence before the Court. Now the short point is whether the Court below is correct in observing that PWs. 15 and 16 did not commit any offence as alleged by A1 on the basis of their own evidence before the Court.

( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor raised a preliminary objection contending that the accused has no locus standi to file such an application. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri A. T. M. Rangaramanujam submitted that the petitioner as A1 can file such an application to summon PWs. 15 and 16 as accused in the case. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in "rawoof Patel v. State", 1996 (1) ALD (Crl.) 432 AP, in "jv. Narayana Reddy v. Slate of A. P", 1996 (1) ALD (Crl.) 649 AP, a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in "girish Yadav v. State of M. P. "t 1996 (1) ALD (Crl.) 246 SC and also a judgment of the High Court of Delhi in "mohan Wahi v. State", 1982 Crl. L. J. 2040 (Delhi ).

( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions I have to notice Section 319 of Crl. P. C. Which is the relevant provision and which reads as under:"section 319: Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses rehears; (b) subject to the p