VAMAN RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. seeks quashing of the order dt. 10-8-1999 of the learned I Addl. Munsiff Magistrate, Narasaraopet in Crl. M. P. No. 767 of 1999 in CC. No. 224 of 1998 under which the petitioners have been directed to be summoned under Section 319 of Cr. P. C. to face trial in respect of offence under Section 379 of IPC along with accused No. 1. ( 2 ) IT appears the complaint in that CC filed Crl. M. P. No. 293 of 1999 for production of vehicle in respect of which offence is said to have been committed. In that petition, accused No. 1 in that case filed his counter stating that a partnership firm of which accused No. 1 is the Managing Partner had financed the complainant for purchase of the vehicle in question on hire-purchase basis and that as disputes arose between the partners, partnership was dissolved and the vehicle in question was now in the custody of Byneedi Venkateswara Reddy, petitioner No. 1 herein. This plea was taken as a way of defence that accused No. 1 was under these circumstances unable to produce the vehicle in the Court. ( 3 ) IT is also mentioned in the said counter that the said Venkateswara Reddy, petitioner No. 1 herein, was also a partner of the said firm by name M/s. Maruthi Finance, along with other partners, namely, petitioners 2 to 4 herein. Thereafter, the complainant filed Cri. M. P. No. 767 of 1999 requesting the Court to direct summons to the petitioners herein as the accused in the case for facing the charge under Section 379 of IPC. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate passed the following order on this petition :"the petition and record shows that the complainant alleges the firm against seized the property. Without adding all the parties as accused the complainant be disposed off as sole accused is contending the property is with other parties. Hence in the interest of justice. Petition allowed. Issue summons to proposed accused. " ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no material to proceed under Section 319 of Cr. Without adding all the parties as accused the complainant be disposed off as sole accused is contending the property is with other parties. Hence in the interest of justice. Petition allowed. Issue summons to proposed accused. " ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no material to proceed under Section 319 of Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that there was sufficient material before the Court to satisfy itself about the involvement of the petitioners herein in the offence in question and as such the order of the learned Magistrate is in accordance with the provisions under Section 319 of Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) THE order of the learned Magistrate extracted above, it is regrettable to note, does not seem to make out any sense. It is possible that there may be typographical mistakes in preparing the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is also possible that if the learned Magistrate has prepared the order in her own hand, there might have been a mistake in transcribing it by the Typist. At any rate, the order as it appears now, as seen from the certified copy, does not seem to carry any sense. ( 8 ) AS to the merits, it may be mentioned that what Section 319 of Cr. P. C. contemplates is that where it appears from the evidence adduced during any enquiry or trial that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which the person can be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. ( 9 ) THE first requirement is that the material or evidence on the basis of which the learned Magistrate could proceed under Section 319 of Cr. P. C. should have come on record during an enquiry or trial. In this case, as the learned Magistrate has already taken cognizance of the case, the question of enquiry does not arise. The case stands posted for trial. Admittedly, the trial in the case is yet to be commenced. No evidence has been adduced in this case during the trial. The question of any evidence appearing during the trial , therefore, does not arise. The case stands posted for trial. Admittedly, the trial in the case is yet to be commenced. No evidence has been adduced in this case during the trial. The question of any evidence appearing during the trial , therefore, does not arise. ( 10 ) FURTHER, allegations made in a counter filed by accused No. 1 in another proceeding for the custody of the vehicle cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as evidence appeared during the trial. ( 11 ) TAKING any view of the matter, the order of the learned Magistrate purported to have been passed under Section 319 of Cr. P. C. cannot be sustained. ( 12 ) UNDER these circumstances, this petition is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate dt. 9-8-1999 passed in Crl. M. P. No. 767 of 1999 in CC No. 224 of 1998 is quashed. This does not, however, preclude the learned Magistrate to proceed under Section 319 of Cr. P. C. if, during the course of trial, evidence brought on record discloses any incriminating material against the petitioners. Petition allowed.