The central legal point established in the judgment is that the powers under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. should only be exercised when the complicity of another person in the offence is visible from the evidence, and the court must record elaborate reasons before issuing summons to a person not originally accused.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep K. Shinde, J. - Rule.

2 Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3 This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order purportedly passed in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) by the learned Magistrate in CC No.181/SW/09.

4 Pending trial, the complainant moved an application for impleadment of the petitioners as accused in terms of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The impugned order reads as under:

"Issue notice to proposed accused named in the application".

5 Feeling aggrieved by this order, petitioners have moved this Court.

6 Heard Mr. Shirodkar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1.

7 Mr. Shirodkar submitted that Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate issuance of notice to the proposed accused. He would submit that failure of the Court to pass a reasoned or speaking order in exercise of the powers while adding a person, who is not an accused, as an accused by invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.is illegal and cannot be sustained. On these two grounds, Mr. Shirodkar seeks to quash the impugned order.

8 Mr. Naik the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 contended that since provisions of Section 319(1) does not mandate that Speaking Order should be passed by the Court while adding a person, who is not implicated in the case and, therefore, the order cannot be said to be illegal or vitiated for want of reasoned order.

9 Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:

"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 witnesses re-heard;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. "

Although the provisions of Section 319(1) of the Cr.P.C. do not in terms mandate the passing of a Speaking Order, the powers of the Court are to be exercised only in the compelling reasons and, therefore, it is required to record elaborate reasons since when matters are carried to the higher Courts, reasons recorded facilitate the higher Courts to understand as to what weighed with the learned Judge while passing the impugned order. Herein, the learned trial Judge has issued notice to the proposed accused, which is not contemplated under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. Plain reading of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. imply that if it appears from the evidence, that any person not being the accused, has committed an offence for which such person would be tried together with the accused, the Court is empowered to try such persons for the offence which, he appears to have committed. Therefore, Sub-section (1) of Section 319 contemplates that while exercising the powers complicity of other person in the offence is visible from the evidence. In the case of Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 632, the Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 83 held thus:

"83. It is, therefore, not any mate