Judgment D. N. PRASAD, J. 1. Both applications filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been heard together as they are arising out of the same order dated 17-3-97 passed by Shri S. K. Sirha, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi in G. R. No. 1800 of 1992 (Hatia P. S. Case No. 122 of 1992) whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate passed the order for issuance of summons against both the petitioners under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The short facts giving rise to this applications that Hatia P.S. Case No. 122 of 1992 was registered against the accused persons including the petitioners by one Yashoda Devi alleging therein that her husband Bahura Sahu working as Mazdoor in H.M.B.P. died in H.E.C. plant Hospital on 13-11-1987 and she was his nominee in his Provident Fund Account/Group Insurance etc. but one Maina Devi daughter of Moti Sahu impersonating herself as Yasoda Devi withdrew the final payment due to be paid to her husband Bahura Sahu and she was identified by Dinesh Sahu, Jagnarayan Sahu and Chunni Lal Naiyak. It is further alleged that the payments were made to Maina Devi even though the fact was known to the accused persons. Accordingly the first Information Report was lodged. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge sheet against accused Dinesh Sah, Jagnarayan Sah, Chunni Lal and Maina Devi only but both the petitioners, namely, Aditya Nand Singh and Shyam Krishna Jha have not been sent up for trial. After submission of charge sheet cognizance for the offence under Secs. 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was taken as far back as of 12-2-1993. 3. During the course of trial four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and there is nothing specific against the petitioners but even then the learned Magistrate passed an order for issuance of summons against the petitioners. 4. Heard Shri P. S. Dayal, Sr. Advocate and Mr. N. N. Sinha on behalf of the petitioners and also the learned A.P.P. for the State. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate has the evidence on record properly he passed the impugned order. 4. Heard Shri P. S. Dayal, Sr. Advocate and Mr. N. N. Sinha on behalf of the petitioners and also the learned A.P.P. for the State. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate has the evidence on record properly he passed the impugned order. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already been figured as the accused in the F.I.R. at the initial stage of the case but after completion of the investigation as no evidence was found against them, they were not sent up for trial. He also drew my attention to Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. and according to him it provides or summoning of a person during trial who are not an accused in course of inquiry or investigation and as such, the impugned order is illegal and not in accordance with law. It is also argued that two women are claiming to be the wife of Bahura Sahu and the petitioner Shyam Krishna Jha has got no concern with the identity of Yasoda Devi as well as there is no allegation that the petitioner made the payment nor he had identified the lady at the relevant time to receive the money as Yasoda Devi and so the involvement of the petitioners in the instant case does not arise. It is further submitted that the issuance of summons against the petitioners is also bad in law as there is no sanction obtained as required under Sec. 197, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel appearing also relied upon the cases reported in AIR 1983 SC 67 : (1983 Cri LJ 159) and also the case reported in (1991) 1 Pat LJR (SC) 41 : (1990) Cri LJ 2302).5A. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned order to be interfered at this stage as the witnesses examined during trial have also named these petitioners to be involved in the crime. It is further argued that both the petitioners have already been made accused in the F.I.R. at the very initial stage and the witnesses examined during trial have also engaged their involvement and, therefore,heir indulgence in the crime has been established for which Sec. 319, Cr.P.C. has fully been attracted in the instant case. It is further argued that both the petitioners have already been made accused in the F.I.R. at the very initial stage and the witnesses examined during trial have also engaged their involvement and, therefore,heir indulgence in the crime has been established for which Sec. 319, Cr.P.C. has fully been attracted in the instant case. According to him, the trial Court can even summon a person who has already been discharged by it and not sent up for trial as the witnesses examined have named these petitioners also. In this respect, he relied upon a case reported in (1999) 3 East Cri C 243 (Patna). 6. Both the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. as against whom there was an allegation that they were also in know of the fact that Maina Devi who had received the money impersonating as Yasoda Devi. It further appears from the charge sheet that both the petitioners also with others have not been sent up for trial. In course of trial four witnesses have been examined. It further appears that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 has also named these petitioners as indicated in paragraph 57 of the deposition. P.W. 3 the informant also named in the petitioners. 7. Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. says : "Where in 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. 8. "Any person not being the accused" this expression covers even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation or discharged during inquiry stage but against whom, evidence of involvement in the offence comes before this Court. Reference can be made in AIR 1979 SC 339 : (1979 Cri LJ 339). 9. In the case of Joginder Singh V/s. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1979 SC 339 : (1999 Cri LJ 333), it has already been observed by the Apex Court as regards to the expression "any person not being the accused" which clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court. A criminal complaint case was registered against 5 persons including two appellants. A criminal complaint case was registered against 5 persons including two appellants. The police having found the two appellants were innocent, chargesheeted the remaining three persons and they were committed to trial. At the trial, evidence have been shown, the appellants informant in the crime, the prosecution moved an application that they be tried along with the three accused and the Sessions Judge directed the appellants to stand trial together with other accused. Their revision application in the High Court was dismssed. In their appeal, it was submitted that Sec. 319, Cr.P.C. was in applicable to the facts of this case because the frage any person not being the accused occurring in the section excluded from this operation an accused who had been released by the police. This Court rejected the contention holding that the said expression clearly covered any person who has not been tried already by the Court and the very purpose of including such a provision like Sec. 319, Cr.P.C. clearly showed that even a person who had been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing involvement in the offence came before the Criminal Court were included in the said expression. 10. Thus Sec. 319, Cr.P.C. gives ample powers to any Court to take cognizance against any person not being an accused before it and tried him along with other accused, if evidence laid during the trial satisfied the Court about involvement of the said accused in the crime. 11. In the case of Chunnu Sahani V/s. State of Bihar reported in (1999) 3 East Cri C 243, it was observed clearly that even where an accused was not sent up by the police to face the trial and the person was discharged, Sec. 319 of the Code has got full application in a case when the trial Court, on examination of evidence has satisfied that some other persons not sent up for trial are also responsible for the same offence. Even where a person has been dicharged by the Magistrate, it could summon subsequently, if during trial some evidence transpired against them. 12. Even where a person has been dicharged by the Magistrate, it could summon subsequently, if during trial some evidence transpired against them. 12. The prosecution case produced the evidence during trial which satisfies the Court that other accused even if not sent up for trial have also committed the offence or their involvement in the crime comes to light, the Court can take cognizance against them and try them together with other accused. Hence there is no bar to summon the petitioners under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. even if they have not been sent up by the police when some evidence has been collected against them during the trial for being tried together. 13. As regards the contention about sanction under Sec. 197, Cr.P.C., it is apparent that there is no direct and reasonabe nexus between the offence committed and discharge of official duty. It has also been held in the case ofShambhu Nath Mishra V/s. State of U.P. reported in AIR 1997 SC 2102 : (1997 Cri LJ 2491) that in case of cognizance of a public officer in discharge of their duty, there is no bar in lodging the prosecution and sanction is not required. Moreover in the instant case. there is nothing specific to have nexus between the offences committed and discharge of official duty. 14. Having regard the whole facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no merit in both the applications which are according dismissed. However, both the petitioners may raise all those points at the appropriate stage of trial, if they so like.Applications dismissed.