JUDGMENT : S.G SHAH, J. The petitioner herein has challenged the judgment and order dated 13th July, 2016 below Exh. 212 in Special ACB Case No. 1 of 2014 by Special Judge (ACB) and 5th Additional Sessions Judge of Surat whereby the Sessions Judge has while allowing the application of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed that the present petitioner should be tried in such pending case for the offences punishable under sections 7, 8, 9, 12, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under sections 213, 214, 217 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is further directed by the Sessions Court to issue summons to the petitioner to appear before the Court on 28th July, 2016, though, prosecution has asked for issuance of warrant against the petitioner, in that case the petitioner could have been arrested and required to apply for bail. Thereby, the Sessions Court has instead of issuing warrant as requested by the prosecution, issued a summons. 2. Sum and substance of the application at Exh. 212 by the prosecution is to the effect that the petitioner was having an amount of Rs.4 crores in his possession, which was recovered from his house, for which panchnama was drawn during the investigation and, therefore, when an amount of bribe which was subject matter of the allegation against the main accused was recovered from the petitioner in part out of the total amount of Rs.7 crores as an amount of bribe to be paid to several persons so as to let go the case against the main accused Narayan Sai, who is arrested for different offences under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act and who was having deep roots in several criminal activities including activities of his father Asharam Bapu who is also facing the charges under section 376 etc. and thereby, both are in prison for the last couple of years. 3. The Trial Court has considered the rival submissions and came to the conclusion from the available record before it, that when the recovery panchnama of the huge amount of Rs. and thereby, both are in prison for the last couple of years. 3. The Trial Court has considered the rival submissions and came to the conclusion from the available record before it, that when the recovery panchnama of the huge amount of Rs. 4 crores is proved on record and thereby, when there is no scope of panch witnesses becoming hostile who have categorically confirmed the prosecution case and prove the panchnama, it becomes clear that the petitioner was holding huge amount i.e Rs.4 crores which is reported to be used for offering bribe to all concerned in the case of Narayan Sai. Therefore, the Sessions Court has considered that now, there is prima facie evidence, against the petitioner and that it would be appropriate to prosecute him with other accused of the same case and hence, he was required to be added as an accused. Therefore, such application is allowed. 4. Whereas the petitioner has challenged the such order submitting that there is no evidence against the petitioner so as to arraign him and to join him as an accused in a case with Narayan Sai. The petitioner has submitted that as many as 14 witnesses have been examined and none of the witness has adduced any evidence which can be considered as sufficient evidence against the petitioner so as to join him as an accused in the pending trial. It is further submitted that the application has been filed at a very belated stage, after recording evidence of so many witnesses and, therefore, in absence of evidence against the petitioner he cannot and, therefore, he should not be joined as an accused and cannot be made to defend himself. 5. However, the petitioner has mainly emphasized upon the legal issue referring the decisions in the case of Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2014 (2) GLH 238 and in the case of Hardeep singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 . 6. Whereas learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent state being prosecuting agency has referred and relied upon the evidence of witness Ashwinbhai Vallabhbhaio Dangariya at Exh. 241 being PW No. 14. Deposition of all witnesses are annexed with the petition by the petitioner. 6. Whereas learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin for the respondent state being prosecuting agency has referred and relied upon the evidence of witness Ashwinbhai Vallabhbhaio Dangariya at Exh. 241 being PW No. 14. Deposition of all witnesses are annexed with the petition by the petitioner. The learned P.P has also relying upon the provisions of section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 193 and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. During the course of his argument, learned advocate Mr. Hardik A. Dave for the petitioner has read out the statement of the petitioner recorded by the police during the investigation on 14th December, 2013 and submitted that the petitioner is merely an accountant in Sahaj Super Stores where he is earning amount of Rs.5,000/- per month and that initilly he was serving with different companies and his salary, when he joined such Sahaj Super Stores was Rs.4,500/- but thereafter, he is getting Rs.5000/-. He has also admitted that in addition to salary as aforesaid, he used to write down the accounts of 3-4 shops and doing work of submission of income tax return for private individual and from all such activities he is earning Rs.10,000/-, thereby, in all his earning is Rs.15,000/-. It is, his say that such Sahaj Super Stores Private Ltd. Company is having 5 directors amongst whom one Ketanbhai Madevbhai Patel is one of the accused in such ACB case, since he was managing to pay the amount of bribe to some officers in favour of Narayan Sai. It is further disclosed by the petitioner in his statement before the police that he came to know about the incident of trap by the police only from the news on T.V channel on 13th December, 2013 and when police has arrested his employee Ketanbhai, he inquired about the incident. It is further disclosed by the petitioner in his statement before the police that he came to know about the incident of trap by the police only from the news on T.V channel on 13th December, 2013 and when police has arrested his employee Ketanbhai, he inquired about the incident. He has fairly disclosed that on 12.12.2013, he received a phone-call from his employee Ketanbhai who has asked him to come with an amount of Rs.4 crores out of Rs.7 crores placed in house at particular place i.e in a lane of Triniti Business Center in Adajan area of City of Surat and therefore, he has dropped his family at some marriage function and after taking Maruti Van of Sahaj Super Stores, he had been to his house from where he has taken 4 crores rupees and reached the meeting place as conveyed by the Ketanbhai Patel where he was sitting in one Inova car with some police officers and when Ketanbhai has instructed him to place the four bags with 4 crores rupees in it, into the Inova car where Ketanbhai and police officers were waiting for him. Therefore, he has transferred such bags of currency notes of Rs.4 crores and at that time Ketanbhai conveyed not to talk about the such issue and thereafter, he had gone to his house and after changing the dress he had attended the marriage. In view of such disclosure the prosecution had raided and inspected his house also on 14.12.2013, when another 3 crores rupees in case was found from his bed-room. Therefore, on inquiry by the police officers, the witness has disclosed that his master i.e employee Ketanbhai has placed an amount of Rs.7 crores in two installments, but, he does not know the actual date and confirms that Ketanbhai has told him to keep the amount at his house with a instructions that as and when necessary, he will take it. Therefore, he has never asked any question to his employee Ketanbhai nor he has counted an amount and that except this incident, Ketanbhai has never placed any such amount at his house. He further confirms that he has no personal relation with the Ketanbhai. He also confirms that he was aware that his employee Ketanbhai is follower of Asharam Bapu and used to visit his Ashram at Jahangirpura, regularly. 8. He further confirms that he has no personal relation with the Ketanbhai. He also confirms that he was aware that his employee Ketanbhai is follower of Asharam Bapu and used to visit his Ashram at Jahangirpura, regularly. 8. Unfortunately, such statement of the petitioner it self, is practically enough to join him as an accused in the charge-sheet against other culprits. However, so far as recovery of currency notes of Rs.3 crores from the house of the petitioner is concerned, it seems that prosecution has waited before joining him as an accused till proper evidence is proved on record regarding his involvement. On such submission by the P.P it is submitted by the petitioner that such evidence is proved on record only on 31.03.2016 but application at Exh. 212 is submitted on 21.01.2016 and, therefore, evidence regarding recovery of Rs.3 crores from the petitioner house cannot be taken into the consideration. There is no substance in said submission because the impugned order is not based upon such sole information, but, in fact, as and when, prosecution has reached to the conclusion that now there would be a sufficient evidence against the petitioner, they have promptly applied for the same and practically speaking, it was the right time to join the petitioner as an accused just before proving the panchnama regarding the raid of his house from where currency notes were received so as to enable him to defend himself properly. 9. But, in any case, the fact remains that prima facie, there is an averment, statement and, thereby, conclusion, may be before the investigating agency and thereby, it may not have sole reason and much weight; but when it gets supported by proper evidence, then there is no reason to believe that said application and prayer is at belated stage. 10. The perusal of PW No. 14 at Exh. 241 and panchnama proved by him at Exh. 243 makes it clear that an amount of Rs.3 crores in the form of currency notes, details of which are described in detail in such recovery panchnama, was found from the house of the present petitioner and, thereby, when huge amount of Rs.3 crores was recovered from the house of the accountant of private shop, there remains nothing but it may certainly prima facie be presumed that such amount is for some illegal activity and/or towards illegal gratification in any manner. In the present case, there is prima facie evidence that out of Rs. 7 crores placed at the house of the petitioner, Rs.4 crores was transmitted on the date of trap i.e 13th December, 2014. Therefore, if it is coming on record that the petitioner was in all having Rs.7 crores at his house and thereby, when remaining Rs.3 crores was recovered from his house, therefore, practically there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the petitioner with other accused. Thereby, so far as factual aspect is concerned, there is sufficient material and evince on record which confirms that the petitioner has helped the main accused in commission of offence for which they are prosecuted and, thereby, when petitioner has abetting so and thereby, when he supported the main accused to carry out their illegal activity, he can certainly be tried with the main accused and to that extent, I do not see any irregularity and illegality in the impugned order, so as to interfere with such order in any manner whatsoever. 11. However, the petitioner is also relying upon above referred citation and emphasized that legal proposition of said citation is to the effect that there is no evidence against the petitioner to prosecute him as per the impugned order. If we peruse the judgment of the Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria (Supra), it becomes clear that the judgment is though confirming the settled legal position as per the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra), the decision to allow the petition in favour of the proposed accused is mainly on factual aspect when in para 20, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held that no evidence has at all come during the trial which shows even a prima facie involvement of the appellant in the crime. It cannot be ignored that such decision is mainly based upon the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer in favour of the petitioner before the Supreme Court and therefore, Supreme Court has categorically observed that when Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit that there was no material found to show involvement of the appellant. Therefore, the Supreme Court has state that in that case, the Trial Court and High Court have committed error of joining the appellant before it as co-accused in the trial. Therefore, practically the decision is judgment in rem. Therefore, the Supreme Court has state that in that case, the Trial Court and High Court have committed error of joining the appellant before it as co-accused in the trial. Therefore, practically the decision is judgment in rem. The relevant observations by the Supreme Court reads as under: “In reply to the said application, the Investigating Officer filed his affidavit stating therein that during the course of investigation, nobody supported the plea of the wife that the deceased was apprehending any threat from the petitioner or for that matter, any other person in another affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, a firm stand was taken that no material had surfaced to show the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. It was pointed out by the Investigating Officer that the deceased filed an application for arms licence and in that application also he did not disclose any threat or apprehension to his life from any person, including the petitioner herein. Notwithstanding the aforesaid affidavit of the Investigating Officer, the Sessions Judge directed for further investigation. In the light of the aforesaid, the investigating agency submitted further report stating therein that the call records of the period immediately preceding the death of the deceased do not show any nexus between him and the petitioner and the deceased did not have any threat from the petitioner. In this way, the police did not find the complicity of the petitioner in the Crime.” 12. However, learned advocate for the petitioner has read out legal proposition discussed by the Supreme Court in such judgment. However, as aforesaid when decision is based upon the factual aspect that the call records of the period immediately preceding death of the deceased, did not show any nexus between him and the petitioner and that the deceased did not have any threat of the petitioner, the legal discussion in the judgment is not much material which is otherwise nothing but settled legal position after full bench judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra). 13. In any case, if we peruse the contents of the judgment which was referred by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it becomes clear that for its determination as such in para 8 of the judgment, practically Hon'ble the Supreme Court has relied upon para 98 and 99 of the judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra). 13. In any case, if we peruse the contents of the judgment which was referred by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it becomes clear that for its determination as such in para 8 of the judgment, practically Hon'ble the Supreme Court has relied upon para 98 and 99 of the judgment in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra). Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: “Before we proceed to deal with the evidence against the appellant and address whether in light of the evidence available, power under Section 319 of the Code was validly exercised, it would be expedient to understand the position of law in this regard. The issue regarding the scope and extent of powers of the Court to arraign any person as an accused during the course of inquiry or trial in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code has been set at rest by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the Case of Harddep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (1) Scale 241 . On a review of the Authorities, this Court summarized the legal position in the following words: “98. Power under section 319 Cr.P.C is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person form the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 99. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the Court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C” Section 319 of the Code confers power on the trial Court to find out whether a person who ought to have been added as an accused has erroneously been omitted or has deliberately been excluded by the Investigating agency and that satisfaction has to be arrived at on the basis of the evidence so led during the trial. On the degree of satisfaction for invoking power under Section 319 of the Code, this Court observed that though the test of prima facie case being made out is same as that when the cognizance of the offence is taken and process issued, the degree of satisfaction under Section 319 of the Code is much higher. Having summarized the law on the degree of satisfaction required by the Courts to summon an accused to face trial in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code, we now proceed to consider the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel. It is common ground that the only evidence that the trial Court has relied to summon the appellant to face the trial is the note written by the deceased in his own handwriting apprehending death at the appellants hand.” 14. Thereby, the only requirement of section 319 is null, the degree of satisfaction which is much higher than the bunch of the charge-sheet. 15. In view of the above discussion, if we recollect the factual aspect and observation herein above it becomes clear that though application was filed prior to examination of PW NO. 14 and proving the recovery panchnama at Exh. 243 which is discussed herein above, on the date of impugned order, when deposition of PW No. 14 supporting the prosecution case and recovery panchnama and there upon the recovery panchnama at Exh. 243 is now confirming that the petitioner was holding Rs. 14 and proving the recovery panchnama at Exh. 243 which is discussed herein above, on the date of impugned order, when deposition of PW No. 14 supporting the prosecution case and recovery panchnama and there upon the recovery panchnama at Exh. 243 is now confirming that the petitioner was holding Rs. 7 crores on the date of trap from which Rs.4 crores was paid to accused Ketanbhai for using as a bribe and remaining 3 crores was lying with him and therefore, in any case he can certainly be treated as an abater and thereby he can certainly be called upon and prosecuted as per the provisions of Section 319. 16. The reference of the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra) would be sine quo non probably in all cases when power under Section 319 is to be scrutinized because it is a full bench judgment in a group cases, considering the previous decisions prior to such judgment. However, the perusal of entire judgment makes it clear that practically, it was a reference to the full bench because of inconsistent stand taken prior in different decisions by different courts and, thereby, practically the full bench has to simply answers five questions raised before it and thereafter, practically each case is to be decided on facts and circumstances available on record of all such different cases and therefore, except law point, the judgment of the Hardeep Singh (Supra) would not help the petitioner in any manner. To summarize the decisions in such case, it would be appropriate to recollect the issues dealt by the Supreme Court and its answers which are found in para 110 of the judgment with reads as under: “We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows: Question Nos. 1 & III Q.1 What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C can be exercised?. AND Q. III Whether the word “evidence” used in under section 319(1) Cr.P.C has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial? A. In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against who materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. A. In Dharam Pal's case, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against who materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under section 193 Cr.P.C and the Sessions Judge need not wait till ‘evidence’ under section 319 Cr.P.C becomes available for summoning an additional accused. Section 319 Cr.P.C, significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 Cr.P.C Cr.P.C; and under Section 398 Cr.P.C are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr.P.C Materials coming before the Court in course of such inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C, and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet. In view of the above position the word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 Cr.P.C has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e as evidence brought during a trial. Question No. II Q.II Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned? A. Considering the fact that under Section 319 Cr.P.C a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under Section 319(4) Cr.P.C the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination. Question No. IV Q.IV What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr. P.C can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted? Question No. IV Q.IV What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr. P.C can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood be convicted? A. Though under Section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial-therefore the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Question No. V Q.V Does the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charge-sheeted or who have been discharged? A. A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge-sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned the requirement of Section 300 and 398 Cr.P.C has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh.” 17. Therefore, the perusal of above conclusion makes it clear that the word “evidence” in Section 319 of the Cr.P.C has to be broadly understood and not literally that evidence, not proving the trial and which is yet not cross examined by the proposed accused. There may be different degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused under Section 319. Therefore, the perusal of above conclusion makes it clear that the word “evidence” in Section 319 of the Cr.P.C has to be broadly understood and not literally that evidence, not proving the trial and which is yet not cross examined by the proposed accused. There may be different degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused under Section 319. Any person can be joined as additional accused under Section 319 but if, such person is previously discharged from the same case then the requirement of Sections 300 and 398 of Cr.P.C has to be complied with before it summoned concerned. Therefore, practically such judgment does not restrict the joining of petitioner as an accused in any manner whatsoever. However, it cannot be ignored that in the same judgment in para 99 reads as under, while answering issue no. 4, which makes it clear that, there must be stronger evidence than mere probability regarding complicity of the petitioner in commission of crime. “99: Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court not necessarily tested on the anvil of Cross-Examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C In Section 319 Cr.P.C the purpose of providing if ‘it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence’ is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused.” The words used are not ‘for which such person could be convicted’. There is, therefore, no scope for the Court acting under Section 319 Cr.P.C to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. 18. However, learned advocate for the petitioner has also read out several other passages from the judgment, but when full bench has concluded the judgment by the para 117 as quoted herein above, now all other discussion in the judgment is not much material. 19. 18. However, learned advocate for the petitioner has also read out several other passages from the judgment, but when full bench has concluded the judgment by the para 117 as quoted herein above, now all other discussion in the judgment is not much material. 19. However, at this stage, it would be appropriate to recollect the bare provisions of Section 319 of the Cr. P.C are read as under: “319 Cr.P.C -Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.- (1) Where, in the 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. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then- (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took ognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 17.1 A bare reading of Section 319 makes it clear that practically whenever it appears from the evidence to the Court during the course of any inquiry into or trial of any offence that any person not being an accused offence as committed any offence for which he could be tried together, then the Court may proceed again said person for which he appears to have committed. Therefore, what is material is simple interpretation of the word “appears” which literally means “the way that someone, or something looks” or thereby, if, it appears from the evidence available on record, that particular person has committed an offence, Court has ample power to join as such person as an accused subject to sufficient evidence and now compliance of observations by the Supreme Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (Supra). 20. In view of above facts and circumstances, when evidence clearly shows the involvement of the petitioner, in the commission of offence as alleged, I do not see any reason or substance to interfere with the impugned order and therefore, petition stands dismissed. FURTHER ORDER 1. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik A. Dave for the petitioner prays for stay of execution of this order or at least exemption to the petitioner from appearing before the trial Court. However, considering the facts, circumstances and reasons assigned in this judgment, I do not see any reason either to stay execution of the impugned or present order. 2. So far as exemption from personal appearance is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to apply for the same before the trial Court and in that case, the trial Court shall decide such request in accordance with law without being influenced by impugned order or this judgment. 3. As already observed in the judgment, the trial Court has not issued the warrant, but issued summons for appearance and, therefore, apprehension of the petitioner to send him in custody, is unwarranted at this stage.