ORDER : 1. The petitioners herein have challenged the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar in C.C. No. 253/2012, wherein the learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. by the prosecution to add the petitioners as accused in the case and issued summons to the petitioners herein. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a compliant of one Siddramappa Nagashetty Patil dated 23.03.2012 an FIR was registered in Crime No. 58/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 506 read Section 149 of IPC against eight persons including the petitioners herein. The police after investigation in the case have filed charge sheet against five accused persons and the name of the petitioners herein were left out at the time of filing the charge sheet. The charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC. After filing of charge sheet, the case is now pending before the court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar in C.C. No. 253/2012. 3. During the course of trial in the said case, the complainant Siddramappa was examined as PW-1 on 02.07.2018. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that the petitioners have also assaulted him along with other accused and caused injuries. Even before examination in chief of PW-1 was completed the learned APP has sought adjournment on the ground that he is required to file an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly further examination-in-chief of complainant PW-1 was adjourned and there afterwards on the application filed by the learned APP, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order allowing the said application and adding the petitioners as accused in the case and accordingly issued summons to them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is highly illegal and same is without application of mind. He submits that even before examination-in-chief is completed the learned APP has filed this application and based on a stray statement made by PW-1 the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order which has got serious consequences and therefore he submits that impugned order is bad in law. 5. He submits that even before examination-in-chief is completed the learned APP has filed this application and based on a stray statement made by PW-1 the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order which has got serious consequences and therefore he submits that impugned order is bad in law. 5. He also submits that the order has been passed after about 7 years from the date of incident and therefore there is a bar under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of the alleged offences and even under the said ground the order passed is bad in law. He submits that the impugned order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioners and therefore the same is in violation of principle of natural justice and accordingly he prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-complainant seriously oppose the petition stating that the learned Magistrate was justified in passing the impugned order on the basis of the available evidence on record. They submit that the accused is not required to be heard at this stage and it is only after the subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, the impugned order has been passed. They also submit that petitioners have been left out in the charge sheet in spite of there being sufficient material against them to connect them to the crime and therefore justice is now done by arraying them as accused. Therefore, they have prayed to reject the petition. 7. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “319. 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. (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 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 cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 8. Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is based upon the doctrine “judex demnatur cum nocens absolvitur” which means “A judge is condemned when a guilty man is acquitted or absolved. This is a salutary power enabling the court to discharge its obligation to the society by bringing the real culprits to stand trial. The object of this section is to not allow the culprits of an offence to get away unpunished. This is a power given to the court to check in those cases where the investigation agency deliberately does not array the real culprits as accused in the case. 9. It is a settled principle of law that power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised very sparingly, because it is an extraordinary power given to the court and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The said power is required to be exercised in appropriate cases wherever the court feels that the real culprits have been left out in the case. An order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is required to be passed only after judicious application of the mind to the material available on record and the resultant order should be a well reasoned order. Before passing an order under Sections 319 of Cr.P.C. the court is required to satisfy itself that on the basis of the evidence available on record, there are chances of convicting the proposed accused in the case. This subjective satisfaction of the court should be keeping in mind that the proposed accused persons have been left out in the case on the ground that there are no sufficient material to proceed against them. 10. This subjective satisfaction of the court should be keeping in mind that the proposed accused persons have been left out in the case on the ground that there are no sufficient material to proceed against them. 10. The consequences of an order passed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. against a person who would be tried along with other accused person for the alleged offence in the case is very severe. Therefore, the court has to be conscious of this fact and before exercising the extraordinary power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. the court is required to be slow and careful. 11. For a mere asking by the complaint or by the prosecution the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed. If it is found that a deliberate attempt is made by the witnesses to implicate certain persons in the case then the court should not exercise its power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 12. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that in the charge sheet the name of the petitioners has been left out. During the course of examination-in-chief of complainant/ PW-1, he has stated that even the petitioners have assaulted him and participated in the crime along with the other accused. Even before completion of the examination-in-chief of this witness, learned APP has filed application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the said application without there being an application of judicious mind, without there being a reasoned order the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order in a very casual manner. This is not permissible in law. The learned Judge is required to exercise power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. on appreciation of reasonable material on record and not on the basis of one stray statement of the complainant. The impugned order suffers with all these legal infirmities and therefore it cannot be sustained. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the court below could not have entertained the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. because cognizance of alleged offence cannot be taken as against petitioners as they are time barred, does not merit any consideration. 13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the court below could not have entertained the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. because cognizance of alleged offence cannot be taken as against petitioners as they are time barred, does not merit any consideration. Reading of Section 319(4)(b) of Cr.P.C. makes it very clear that subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. Therefore, even if an accused is subsequently added in exercise of power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. cognizance of the alleged offences against him would be from the date on which the court has originally taken cognizance of the offences in the said case. The added accused will be tried along with other accused in respect of the offences for which already cognizance has been taken by the learned Judge and therefore, the bar under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. will not be applicable to the accused persons who are subsequently added pursuant to the orders passed by the court in exercise of power under Sections 319 of Cr.P.C. 14. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the order impugned is bad in law as the same is passed without hearing petitioners who are now arrayed as accused in the case also does not merit consideration. The accused will not have a right to be heard before the order is passed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is a special power given to the court to proceed against such persons appearing to be guilty of offences in the said case, for which cognizance has been already taken in the case. This power is required to be exercised by the court in the course of any inquiry into or trial of any offences, based on the evidence available on record and it is a subjective satisfaction of the court and on such subjective satisfaction the court can pass an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. either on the basis of an application by the complainant/ prosecution or the courts can even suo moto exercise such powers. At this stage accused is not required to be heard in the matter. 15. At this stage accused is not required to be heard in the matter. 15. For the reasons narrated herein above the impugned order in this case suffers from serious irregularities and illegalities and the same cannot be sustained in law and therefore it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.01.2019 passed in C.C. No. 253/2012 by the court of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar on the application filed under Sections 319 of Cr.P.C. by the learned APP is quashed. However, this order will not come in the way of the learned Magistrate exercising his power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. in the event he finds sufficient evidence on record to exercise such power.