ORDER : This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the delay of 246 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition. 2. The above said revision is directed against the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunleveli in Crl.M.P.No.5571 of 2017. Upon the perusal of the final report filed by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.7 of 2016, it is seen that one Venkatesh Sriram Kumar alone was arrayed as an accused. On perusal of the records filed along with the final report and the protest petition filed by the defacto complainant, the Court below has added other two persons namely, Lakshmi and N. Mariappan, who are the petitioners herein, as additional accused and caused summons to them. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed on the ground that on a protest petition, if the Magistrate is of the opinion additional accused are to be included and tried, the same should be in accordance with private complaint procedure. 4. In short, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sworn statement of the defacto complainant and the witnesses in support of the complaint should be recorded before causing summon. Since the Magistrate has not exercised such procdure, the order of the Court below dated 01.09.2017 is bad in law. 4.1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at length and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the first respondent. 5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the impugned order of adding two more accused based on the final report laid by the prosecution is in consonance with the powers conferred upon the Magistrate under section 319 Cr.P.C., the Court below has initially taken cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C., based on the final report filed by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Later on application of mind and appreciation of materials, the Magistrate has thought it fit that sufficient materials are available for adding two more persons as accused in this case. Therefore by exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C, those two persons have been added as additional accused and caused summons to them. There is no infirmity in the said process. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Therefore by exercising power under Section 319 Cr.P.C, those two persons have been added as additional accused and caused summons to them. There is no infirmity in the said process. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would circulate a judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in CDJ 1967 SC 075 (Raghubans Dubey Vs. State of Bihar), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court settled the issue as follows:- “....In our opinion, once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the Conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence. As pointed out by this Court in 1965 1 SCR 269 : AIR 1965 SC 1185 the term "complaint" would include allegations made against persons unknown. If a Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) on the basis of a complaint of facts he would take cognizance and a proceeding would be instituted, even though persons who had committed the offence were not known at that time. The same position prevails, in our view, under Section 190(1)(b).” 7. For the reasons pointed above, I find no error in the order dated 01.09.2017 in Crl. M.P. No. 5571 of 2017 passed by the Court below. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. SR26408 of 2018 is rejected at the S.R. stage itself.