Judgment: 1. Two persons by name Rajendra Zanaklal Baghele and Bharatlal Yadavrao Pund are facing sessions trial case bearing No. 123 of 2000 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara. Accused No. 1 is facing charge under Section 376 and 314 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas accused No.2 is facing charge under Section 314 IPC read with Section 33 of the Indian Medical Practitioners Act. In the midst of trial, an application came to be made by the public prosecutor, Bhandara before the Additional Sessions Judge praying that the present petitioner be joined as accused. This application is possibly made by using the provisions of Section 319 of the Cri. P.C. though there is no specific reference to the said Section in the application. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated 03/7/2003 directed that the present petitioner should be joined as accused No. 3 and made to face the trial under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code. This order dated 03/7/2003 is challenged in this petition. 2. Few facts necessary for the purposes of disposal of this application are as under: On 23/5/2000 one lady by name Sarita since deceased approached the petitioner for having abortion. The present petitioner had a second opinion obtained from another doctor and the abortion was performed on 24/5/2000 by the petitioner. Said deceased was discharged on 25/5/2000. On 28/5/2000 the deceased complained of some pain in the stomach. She came to the petitioner who advised said Sarita to go to the General Hospital, for treatment. She then went to the General Hospital at Bhandara on 07/6/2000, where operation was conducted and thereafter on 17/6/2000 she again had some complaint about her health. At that time she was advised to go to General Hospital at Nagpur for better treatment. Instead of going to Nagpur, she came back to her village and she expired on 27/6/2000. It appears that investigating agency came across the aforesaid facts, and therefore, application for joining the present petitioner as an accused, has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned Advocate on both the sides. The learned Additional Sessions Judge passed order of directing that the petitioner should be joined as an accused and that he decided this on preliminary satisfaction that at some stage the petitioner had given some treatment to the deceased Sarita. 4. 3. I have heard the learned Advocate on both the sides. The learned Additional Sessions Judge passed order of directing that the petitioner should be joined as an accused and that he decided this on preliminary satisfaction that at some stage the petitioner had given some treatment to the deceased Sarita. 4. Learned Advocate Shri Gupte, for the petitioner submitted that the State erred in filing application for joining the present petitioner in the first place and the said application, if to be treated as an application under Section 319 of Cri. P. C., the stage required for joining the present petitioner as an accused had not reached and hence the application was premature. He further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge missed the mandatory provisions of Section 319 Cri.P.C. and passed the order. According to the learned Advocate Mr. Gupte, if a person is not shown as accused in the charge sheet, such a person can be joined as an accused in the said case provided the evidence is recorded and in the course of recording of evidence there is material to come to the conclusion as regards the involvement of a particular person as an accused. He submitted that merely because the prosecution applies for joining a person as an accused, such a course is not permitted if the name of said person is not found in the charge sheet. According to him, after committal of the case up to the commencement of the evidence, persons whose names are figured in the charge sheet only can be tried and not others. According to Mr. Gupte, in the present case, on facts, the recording of evidence has not commenced, and therefore, there was no cause or reason for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is also involved in the offence for which original applicants No. 1 and 2 are facing the trial. In support of his contention that a person can be joined as an accused if her name has not figured in the charge sheet, but if some material comes against him, only after recording of evidence. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Ranjit Singh vs State of Punjab reported in (1998) 7 SCC 149 . In support of his contention that a person can be joined as an accused if her name has not figured in the charge sheet, but if some material comes against him, only after recording of evidence. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Ranjit Singh vs State of Punjab reported in (1998) 7 SCC 149 . He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 03/7/2003 is not in consonance with the well established provisions as regards joining of a person as an accused in the trial after submission of the charge sheet and hence the impugned order is required to be set aside. 5. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Kale on behalf of the State tried to justify this order by referring to the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. He submitted that investigation shows that deceased Sarita had taken treatment from the present petitioner and present petitioner had occasion to state about the first instance and this is how involvement of the present petitioner is made out. He tried to contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken proper view of the matter and this is how the impugned order is correct. 6. After having considered the rival submissions, I am inclined to observe that the impugned order dated 03/7/2003 is illegal and is required to be quashed and set aside for the reasons as under: The record definitely shows that the name of the present petitioner was not shown in the charge sheet and naturally she was not brought before the Court as an accused. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 319 Cri.P.C., the next stage at which a person can be added as accused is after some evidence is recorded and in that evidence the involvement of a particular person is noticed. In the present case as the job of recording of evidence has not yet commenced, there was no question of the learned Additional Sessions Judge noticing the involvement of the petitioner in the matter. 7. In my view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have appreciated thin distinction between the allegation against the person and a piece of evidence appearing against that person so as to say that the said person was not to be joined at the first instance, but on the basis of evidence his involvement is made out. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. Hence, the order: i) Order dated 03/7/2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge below Exh.6 thereby joining the present petitioner as an accused in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2000 is quashed and set aside. ii) Rule is made absolute.