Judgment : Heard. Without any shred of evidence or materials, the order passed by the learned Special Judge of E.C.Act Cases, Thanjavur, in Crl.M.P. No.280 of 1992 in S.T.C. No.6 of 1990 on 24. 1992 is being challenged in Crl.R.C.No.479 of 1995, for its impropriety and illegality. 2. It is seen from the case records that the revision petitioners were indicted for the alleged offences punishable under clause 19 of the Fertiliser Control Order read with Sec. 10 of the Essential Commodities Act before the trial Court above referred. When the trial was almost over by recording the evidence from both sides, at the stage of arguments on behalf of the parties, a petition under Sec.319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by and on behalf of the prosecution, seeking to implead the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Managing Director and Chief Chemist of EID Parry (India) Limited, as accused in this case, for the reason that the accused who was facing the trial cannot be held responsible. Sec.319(l) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is extracted hereunder for the purpose of appreciating the case in its proper perspective: “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 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.” 3. Other sub-sections may not be relevant for the purpose of this case. Wis thus seen that Sub-sec. (1) of Sec.319 of the Code clearly provides an imperative that the Court is empowered to proceed against any person under this section upon coming to know of the material evidence produced or identified before it even though he was not arraigned as an accused already. Thus, to extend the legal rope against any person, who has committed the offence, though not brought before the Court but liable to be brought before the court under this section, identification of the proper materials and evidence for his involvement is a must. Judicial function is the basis to be exercised before proceeding against any such person though he was not on record. Judicial function is the basis to be exercised before proceeding against any such person though he was not on record. If such basis is identified by the Court, then Court is empowered to proceed to bring him to the record of the Court to answer to the offences found out against him, otherwise, under no circumstances it can. 4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is no finding or semblance of observation made by the learned Special Judge of the very involvement of the new persons sought to be arraigned for the offences charged nor his finding projects anything towards the commission of the offences charged by the new persons sought to be added. Even if there is any evidence, then, under the guided judicial principle of policy and principle of natural justice, the persons sought to be added as accused before proceedings under Sec.319 of the Code must be heard in person and Court should exercise judicial function as provided under Sec.319 of the Code by serving notice upon the new persons to be added as accused. Simply because a mere asking was done to add any number of persons in a criminal case, it is not at all desirable to accede the request and order to implead any person as an accused. There must be some basic reasonings and materials before the Court to get such persons impleaded and even it is there, the concerned persons should be provided with an opportunity to be heard, to putforth their objections, if any, for the simple reasoning that there was no new materials or investigation done in such cases. If the facts of the instant case is looked into in the context of the above legal position, I am fully constrained to hold that the impugned order under this revision is totally lacking the above legal ratio and for the said reason, I am of the firm view that it cannot be sustained. However, in the interests of justice, while setting aside the impugned order, I deem it necessary to remit back the whole matter to the file of the Special Judge, to consider the case in the light of the above observation after sending notice to the proposed new parties and hear their objections as well as the prosecution and to dispose of the same in accordance with law as discussed above without any further delay. 5. In the result, for all the foregoing reasonings and with the direction given above, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge in C.M.P. No.280 of 1992 in S.T.C. No.6 of 1990 dated 24. 1992 is set aside and the whole matter is remitted back to the file of the learned Special Judge for fresh disposal and accordingly, Crl.R.C. No.479 of 1995 is allowed and disposed of. 6. Following the disposal of Crl.R.C. No.479 of 1995, Crl.R.C. No.478 of 1995 is also allowed for the simple reasoning that the acceptance of the memo filed on behalf of the prosecution at the first instance and the latter dismissal is without any legal propriety but however, in view of the observations held by me in the earlier revision, no separate finding is necessary in this revision. Accordingly, Crl.R.C.No. 478 of 1995 is also allowed.