Judgment : The South India Co-operative Spinning Mills Employees Co-operative Stores Limited, the petitioner herein is third accused in S.T.C.No.449 of 1989 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.6, Tirunelveli. The present first respondent Deputy Inspector of Labour, First Circle, Tirunelveli initiated a complaint against respondents 2 and 3 herein for an alleged offence under Sec.32 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1956. These two respondents are the salesmen and bill clerk of the Society. The allegation against them is that on 2. 1989 at about 10.10 a.m. One Sivalingam had purchased 10 litres of kerosene from the Cooperative Stores and that on actual measurement it was subsequently found out to be less by 0.200 ml. and as such an offence under Sec.32 of the Weights and Measures Act was attracted. After filing of the above complaint summons were issued to respondents 2 and 3. On 22. 1990 the first respondent herein come forward with an application under Sec.319, Crl.P.C. seeking to implead the present petitioner- Society as a co-accused in the case. By his order dated 13. 1990 learned Magistrate allowed this application after recording a finding that respondents 2 and 3 had no objection to this course. It is as against this order passed by learned Magistrate that the present petition underSec.482, Crl.P.C. to quash the same is being filed by the society. 2. The memo dated 22. 1990 by the Complainant seeking to implead the Society as an accused reads that only the bill clerk and salesman have been cited as accused in the case. But as per Sec.40(1) of the Weights and Measures Act, 1958, the Society must also be an accused along with the other workers. Hence, the Society has to be impleaded. Learned Magistrate had passed an order stating that the petition is allowed Since there is no objection from the present respondents 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the quash petitioner submits that as per Sec. 319, Crl.P.C, wherein the course of any enquiry 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 each person for the offence which he appears to have committed. This section contemplates that impleading of accused can be done only after the trial commences and in the course of such trial, evidence appears against such proposed accused. In the instant case, the trial has not commenced and the court cannot implead the Society as an accused merely on the basis of memo filed by the complainant. And the consent given by the accused already on record is of no avail. 4. Sec.40 of the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act 20 of 1958 provides that if a person committing an offence under this Act or any rule made thereunder is a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the com-pany, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In State, by Public Prosecutor v. Raja, 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 190, the salesman and the bill clerk of a Cooperative Society were acquitted under the Tamil Nadu Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, on the ground that the Co-operative Society also ought to have been made a party and in the absence of the Co-operative Society as a party, the accused cannot be found guilty as the offence has been committed by the accused hot in their individual capacity. A single Judge of this Court has held that under the proviso to Sub-sec(1) of Sec.40, the workers who are working in the Society cannot be independently liable for the commission of the offence. The view of the Magistrate that the Society must be made a party, appears to be correct and in the absence of the Society, the accused alone cannot be punished. And accordingly, it dismissed the appeal against acquittal. The memo filed by the complainant on 22. 1990 in the trial court discloses that only in view of this decision the Society is sought to be impleaded. 5. In Jotinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1979 L.W. (Crl.) 73, the Supreme Court has held that when a case is committed to the Court of Sessions in respect of an offence the Court of Sessions takes cognizance of the offence and not of the accused. 5. In Jotinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1979 L.W. (Crl.) 73, the Supreme Court has held that when a case is committed to the Court of Sessions in respect of an offence the Court of Sessions takes cognizance of the offence and not of the accused. Once the Sessions Court is properly seized of the case as a result of the committal order against some accused the power under Sec.319(1) can come into play and such court can add any person, not an accused before it, as an accused and direct him to be tried alongwith the other accused for the offence which such added accused appears to have committed from the evidence recorded at the trial. In Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 67, it has been laid down that Sec.319 of Crl.P.C. gives ample powers to any court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him along with the other accused. From the ratio laid down in those decisions it is seen that the right to bring on record any accused arises the moment an offence is taken cognizance of. The expression ‘in the course of any enquiry into or trial of an offence’ occurring in Sec.319 must be given a wider interpretation so as to enable the court to proceed against any person where it appears to the court that such person has committed the offence concerned. Enquiry or trial contemplated in Sec.319, is not restricted to examination of witnesses. So, there could be no doubt that the complainant herein has every right to get the Society impleaded under Sec.319, Crl.P.C. Once the court is properly seized of the case on taking the complaint on file, it can invoke Sec.319(1), Crl.P.C. to bring on record any accused liable for the offence alleged. I therefore find no merit in the contentions of the petitioner. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed.