The applicants/petitioners have moved this Court for quashing and setting aside judgment dated 22nd October, 2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Criminal Revision No.35 of 2008 and further to quash and set aside order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.6, Yavatmal in Criminal Complaint No.2423 of2006 on 18th August and 28th August, 2007.

2. Respondent No.2 Arun Vinayak Wanzal is original complainant in Criminal Complaint No.2423 of2006Jiled by him originally against respondent No.3 Ashok Thakare for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The original complaint was tiled on 8th June, 2006 alleging. inter alia, that respondent No.3 had been responsible for publication of defamatory news against respondent No.1. The statement of respondent No.2 on oath was recorded by the Magistrate on 4th August, 2006 and summons was issued against respondent No.2 on 7th September 2006.

3. Impugned order dated 18th August. 2007 came to be passed by the Magistrate on the application made by respondent No.3 for amendment of his complaint. Respondent No.3 on 13th August, 2007 had applied for amendment of the complaint and he had proposed to carryout extensive amendment in paragraph 9 of his complaint. The names of the petitioners have been added as accused in paragraph 9 and their roles in the alleged offence have been described in the said para. The learned Magistrate by his cryptic order, which runs as under, has granted the application :

"Peruse the application and say. Heard both the sides. As in interest of justice proposed amendment in the complaint is necessary, application is allowed. Complainant to carry out the same and take further steps to proceed further till next date."

4. After passing of this impugned order, amendment appears to have been carried out and thereafter another impugned order dated 20th August, 2007 came to be passed, which runs as under :

"As per order dated 18.08.07 at Exh.40, accused No.2 to 7 are added, as the complainant wants to proceed against them also. Hence considering all the material on record, perusing the amendment, issue process against all these accused No.2 to 7, on payment of process fees."

5. The applicants approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of filing revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside order passed by the Magistrate directing addition of the applicants as accused in the original complaint. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order of the learned Magistrate. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that though the application was titled as application for amendment, in fact, it was an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has said in his order that since the person who is not named as accused can be made accused if the material existed, the learned Magistrate was right in granting prayer of respondent No.3. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge can be reproduced as under :

"10. It is true' that, there is no provisions to amend criminal complaint in the Cr.P.C. But there is n provision (Section 319 of Cr.P.C.) to implead additional accused. In this context it may not be out of place to refer to section 499 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 12 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. Conjoint reading of section 499 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 12 of Press and Registration of Books Act 1867 reveals that when slender is published the reporter, publisher and editor of the said daily news paper, they become necessary parties to the complaint under section 500 of Indian Penal Code. In view of above provisions it is therefore, appears that nomenclature used ("amendment application) is erroneous in the essence said application at Exh.40 was one under section 319 of Cr.P.C....."

It can be seen that the learned Additional Sess