Judgment :- 1. The first respondent herein laid charge sheet against the second respondent for the alleged offences under Sections 417, 418 and 420 of IPC. During the course of trial of the case, the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the said Court filed a petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to array the petitioners as additional accused in the case. The learned Magistrate passed the order in the said petition, vide C.M.P.No.753 of 2007 on 09.02.2007 sending summons to these petitioners to appear on 12.03.2007. Again on 12.03.2007, the learned Magistrate passed an order adding these petitioners as accused 2 & 3 and then, closing the petition. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court with this revision. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the first respondent. There is no representation for the second respondent. 3. At the outset, I should say that under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence is not automatic. The said power can be exercised only if it appears from the evidences recorded during the trial that those persons who have not been facing trial already also appears to have committed the offences in the same transaction so as to be tried along with the accused who is already facing the trial. There are innumerable judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court explaining the scope of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Very recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench judgment reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 (Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab) has further claimed that the word "evidence", referred to in Section 319 of Cr.P.C., means the evidence recorded during the trial which does not necessarily mean after cross examination. Even without cross examination, the evidence recorded during chief examination can be taken into consideration for the purpose of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. But, in the instant case, I should regret to say that both the Assistant Public Prosecutor who is in charge of the case and the learned Judicial Magistrate have failed to discharge their legal obligation in proper manner which is evident from the following fact. 4. 4. The petition filed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows; "It is submitted that in this case it is appears that there is sufficient evidence is there to proceed against 1) Sikkaiyan and K.S. Achunan. Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may add the above two person as accused and take steps for the trial of the accused and thus render justice." 5. In the above petition, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not mentioned as to what is the evidence upon which the petitioners can be arrayed as additional accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. It is also not mentioned as to what is the part played by these two persons, which is reflected in the evidence. The petition, in fact, is an one sentence petition which does not make out any case for invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Shockingly the learned Magistrate has also not applied his mind. On 09.02.2007 the learned Magistrate has passed the following orders; “Sent summons to (1). S.K. Sikkayan, (2) K.S. Archunan - 12.03.2007". Again when the matter was taken up on 12.03.2007, he passed the following order; “S.K. Sikkayan, K.S. Archunan added as A2 and A3 – Petition closed.” 6. I do not understand as to how a Judicial Magistrate can pass such a non speaking order without reference to the evidence and without reference to the requirement of Section 319 of Cr.P.C. This is a classic example as to how a judicial order should not be passed by any Court. Thus, in my considered view, the order of the learned Magistrate ordering these accused as accused deserves only to be set aside. 7. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned order, dated 12.03.2007, made in Cr.M.P.No.753 of 2007 is set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Note: The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to Mr. M. Dhakshinamoorthy, the then Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, If he is in service even now and wherever he is, so that let him not repeat the same mistake in future.