JUDGMENT Heard Shri V. Singh, learned counsel for appellant and Shri G. Desai, learned Dy. A.G. for respondent-State. Accused applicant Dr. Ramesh Gupta who is facing trial on the charge u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, is aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.2001 passed by the trial Magistrate directing for impleadment of one Maheshchandra Gupta as co-accused of the case and for his trial jointly with the present accused applicant. The impugned order is passed by taking recourse to Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is significant to note that the offence in question was committed way-back on 24.12.1979. The charge-sheet in the case was filed on 6.1.1982. The charges were framed on 1.4.1982. It was only after the entire prosecution evidence was recorded and the case was closed for judgment that the learned magistrate on his own passed the impugned order, thus, reopening the entire case after more than 20 years of its institution. While Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives ample power to Court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him alongwith other accused, the power is really an extra ordinary power conferred on the Court and should be used sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for exercise of such power. (Ramkishan : AIR 1983 SC 67 ). Any order under this provision ought to be passed at the earliest and at the proper stage and within a reasonable period of time. In a recent decision the Apex Court in Michael (2000) Vol. 3 SCC 262 has laid down the guide lines for exercise of power u1s 319 CrPC in following words : "But even then, what is conferred on the Court is only a discretion as could be discerned from the words 'the court may proceed against such persons'. The discretionary power so conferred should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. It is not that the Court should turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. A judicial exercise is called for, keeping a conspectus of the case, including the stage at which the trial has proceeded already and the quantum of evidence collected till then, and also the amount of time which the Court had spent for collecting such evidence. It must be remembered that there is no compelling duty on the Court to proceed against other persons. In the instant case the trial Magistrate seems to have misdirected himself in taking recourse to Sec. 319 CrPC at this distance of time, thus, wasting the whole labour already undertaken all these 20 years. The impugned order is likely to cause prejudice to the present accused who has already suffered ordeal of protracted trial for all these twenty years. I have no manner of doubt that it is a case of misuse of the process of the Court. This petition, thus, succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.8.2001 passed in Criminal Case No. 426/94 is set-aside. A copy of this order be transmitted immediately to the trial Magistrate.