ORDER : Challenging the validity and correctness of adding of a company as an accused, vide petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C., this Criminal Revision Case is preferred under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., impugning the order dated 25.02.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.372 of 2009 in C.C.No.53 of 2003, on the file of Ld. II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram. Procedural History 2. The de facto-Complainant viz., I.T.C is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Calcutta and branch office at Bhimavaram. The Complainant company entered into an agreement with M/s. Swarna Sea Food Limited, for processing marine products in cartons and for their storage in cold storage, as per the agreed terms and conditions. Subsequently, Complainant company found certain irregularities and missing of the stock, for which they have given complaint against the company, its’ Executive Director, General Manager, Production Manager alleging the offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust and misappropriation. After due investigation, police laid charge sheet against A-1 to A-3, i.e., Executive Director, General Manager and Production Manager of the company, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Before the trial Court, after completion of evidence, when the matter reached at the fag end of trial, a petition was filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to add M/s. Swarna Sea Foods Ltd., as an accused, stating that, though the complaint was given against the company, it was not arrayed due to oversight. Having received notice in the said petition, accused did not choose to file any counter. On hearing arguments, the learned Magistrate passed the following impugned order dated 25.02.2009: “Notice given to accused counsel. Counter not filed, perused the petition and contents, perused evidence already adduced by prosecution. All the witnesses consistently deposed that A-1 is Ramakota Reddy is the Executive Director of Swarna Sea foods Ltd and the firm is not added as party to the proceedings. On careful perusal of Ex. P-1 is the agreement made in between Swarna Sea foods Ltd and ITC Ltd. and moreover the Swarna Sea Foods is company registered under companies Act, 1956. In such circumstances, it is just and proper to add the firm as proforma accused and tied along with A-1 to A-3. On careful perusal of Ex. P-1 is the agreement made in between Swarna Sea foods Ltd and ITC Ltd. and moreover the Swarna Sea Foods is company registered under companies Act, 1956. In such circumstances, it is just and proper to add the firm as proforma accused and tied along with A-1 to A-3. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the prosecution is permitted to add Swarna Sea Foods Ltd., as an accused/A-4.” 4. Challenging the correctness of the order impugned dated 25.02.2009, the newly added accused i.e., M/s. Swarna Sea Foods Ltd., represented by its Managing Director filed the present Revision Case. 5. Heard Sri Srikanth Reddy Ambati, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for State and Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that, the company is a juristic person, that A-1 to A-3 were at the site managing the affairs of the company, that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has to be exercised sparingly, and not in casual manner that only when the evidence indicates more than a prima facie case against the additional accused, the Court is justified in adding the accused in the trial, and that the learned Magistrate erroneously exercised the jurisdiction in allowing the petition filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., consequently prays to allow this revision to set aside the order impugned. 7. Learned counsel placed reliance on Ajay Kumar @ Bittu and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, (2021) 4 SCC 301 , where the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the principles of exercise of power under Section 319 as settled by a Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 to be extra-ordinary, discretionary, and required to be sparingly applied. 8. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the de-facto complainant entered into an agreement with the M/s. Swarna Sea Foods Ltd. and due to over sight, the prosecution failed to observe that the said company was not shown as accused in the charge sheet, that the order impugned does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality as the learned Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction judiciously as per law, that the revision petitioner even did not choose to file any objections against the petition filed by the prosecution before the trial Court and that there are no grounds to interfere, consequently prays for dismissal of the revision. Point for Determination 9. The point that would emerge for determination is: - “Whether learned Magistrate erred in exercising the jurisdiction for adding the company, as accused at the fag end of the trial?” Analysis by the Court 10. To begin, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh (supra) observed that the power under Section 319 is conferred on a court based on a maxim judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and that this Doctrine must be the guiding light in the application of the provision. It is profitable to extract Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as follows; “Section 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 a fresh, 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 cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” 11. The precedential law on the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is abundant. For the purpose of exercise of power to summon a person as accused under Section 319, the dual requirements essential are (i) from the evidence it must appear that such person has committed offence; (ii) such person could be tried together with the accused already facing trial, vide R. Dinesh Kumar v. State and others, (2015) 7 SCC 497 . 12. As to the question of how the power under Section 319 must be used, a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court offer help. To cite a few, in Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2007) 7 SCC 378 , it was held that the decision to either proceed or not against a person by Section 319 is left to the discretion of the trial court, which is ought to be taken after applying mind to the evidence before it. Their Lordships have also held that a court can summon a person to face trail even when such person has not been charge-sheeted or has been discharged at an early stage. The reasoning offered was that vide the Section 319, it is sufficient that it “appears” to the court from the evidence that such person has committed the offence. 13. Their Lordships have also held that a court can summon a person to face trail even when such person has not been charge-sheeted or has been discharged at an early stage. The reasoning offered was that vide the Section 319, it is sufficient that it “appears” to the court from the evidence that such person has committed the offence. 13. In Ajay Kumar (supra), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to enunciate the position concerning Section 319 by reiterating the elaborate consideration of the Constitution Bench in Hardeep (supra) to hold that for the exercise of the power under Section 319, the test is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised during framing charges, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if unrebutted would lead to conviction. The reasoning offered to this interpretation is as follows; “In Section 319 CrPC 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 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” This view was reiterated in Jitendra Nath Misra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, MANU/SC/0641/2023; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 480 while holding that the power can be exercised against a person who is not named in the FIR, or named in the FIR but not shown as accused in the charge-sheet. 14. In Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, (2023) 1 SCC 289 , where the question as to the stage at which the power to summon under Section 319 may be used was raised, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power should be exercised before the conclusion of trial as provided in the Section. While interpreting “conclusion of trial”, their Lordships held at paras 27, 32 and 33 thus; “27. From a perusal of the provisions extracted above, it is seen that if the Sessions Court while analysing the evidence recorded finds that there is no evidence to hold the accused for having committed the offence, the judge is required to record an order of acquittal. From a perusal of the provisions extracted above, it is seen that if the Sessions Court while analysing the evidence recorded finds that there is no evidence to hold the accused for having committed the offence, the judge is required to record an order of acquittal. In that case, there is nothing further to be done by the learned Judge and therefore the trial concludes at that stage. In such cases where it arises under Section 232 of CrPC and an order of acquittal is recorded and when there are more than one accused or the sole accused, have/has been acquitted, in such cases, that being the end of the trial by drawing the curtain, the power of the court to summon an accused based on the evidence as contemplated under Section 319 of CrPC will have to be invoked and exercised before pronouncement of judgment of acquittal. ………… 32. Therefore, from a perusal of the provisions and decisions of this Court, it is clear that the conclusion of the trial in a criminal prosecution if it ends in conviction, a judgment is considered to be complete in all respects only when the sentence is imposed on the convict, if the convict is not given the benefit of Section 360 of CrPC. Similarly, in a case where there are more than one accused and if one or more among them are acquitted and the others are convicted, the trial would stand concluded as against the accused who are acquitted and the trial will have to be concluded against the convicted accused with the imposition of sentence. When considered in the context of Section 319 of CrPC, there would be no dichotomy as argued, since what becomes relevant here is only the decision to summon a new accused based on the evidence available on record which would not prejudice the existing accused since in any event they are convicted.” Emphasis supplied 15. In addition, in Sukhpal Singh (supra), their Lordships reiterated the view taken in Rajendra Singh (supra) that the power of a court under Section 319 is to ensure justice is done to the society by bringing to book all those guilty of an offence to maintain social order and it is a salutary power conferred by the Code on the court. Such discretion, on satisfaction of the condition precedents must be exercised as and when the situation the situation may so arise and it cannot be fettered by calling it extraordinary or stating it to be applicable in exceptional circumstances alone. 16. Their Lordships have also issued elaborate guidelines in the exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as follows; “(i) If the competent court finds evidence or if application under Section 319 of CrPC is filed regarding involvement of any other person in committing the offence based on evidence recorded at any stage in the trial before passing of the order on acquittal or sentence, it shall pause the trial at that stage. (ii) The Court shall thereupon first decide the need or otherwise to summon the additional accused and pass orders thereon. (iii) If the decision of the court is to exercise the power under Section 319 of CrPC and summon the accused, such summoning order shall be passed before proceeding further with the trial in the main case. (iv) If the summoning order of additional accused is passed, depending on the stage at which it is passed, the Court shall also apply its mind to the fact as to whether such summoned accused is to be tried along with the other accused or separately. (v) If the decision is for joint trial, the fresh trial shall be commenced only after securing the presence of the summoned accused. (vi) If the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried separately, on such order being made, there will be no impediment for the Court to continue and conclude the trial against the accused who were being proceeded with. (vii) If the proceeding paused as in (i) above is in a case where the accused who were tried are to be acquitted and the decision is that the summoned accused can be tried afresh separately, there will be no impediment to pass the judgment of acquittal in the main case. (viii) If the power is not invoked or exercised in the main trial till its conclusion and if there is a split-up (bifurcated) case, the power under Section 319 of CrPC can be invoked or exercised only if there is evidence to that effect, pointing to the involvement of the additional accused to be summoned in the split up (bifurcated) trial. (ix) If, after arguments are heard and the case is reserved for judgment the occasion arises for the Court to invoke and exercise the power under Section 319 of CrPC, the appropriate course for the court is to set it down for re-hearing. (x) On setting it down for re-hearing, the above laid down procedure to decide about summoning; holding of joint trial or otherwise shall be decided and proceeded with accordingly. (xi) Even in such a case, at that stage, if the decision is to summon additional accused and hold a joint trial the trial shall be conducted afresh and de novo proceedings be held. (xii) If, in that circumstance, the decision is to hold a separate trial in case of the summoned accused as indicated earlier; (a) The main case may be decided by pronouncing the conviction and sentence and then proceed afresh against summoned accused. (b) In the case of acquittal the order shall be passed to that effect in the main case and then proceed afresh against summoned accused.” The guidelines and the view taken by the Constitution Bench have been reiterated by the Apex Court in Juhru and others v. Karim and another, 2023 live law (SC) 128. 17. In Sarabjit Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., Crl. M.C. 2856/2015. Dated 18 May, 2021 Delhi High Court, inadvertently name of a company was omitted from the array of accused in a matter under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The exercise of the power by the Magistrate under Section 319 was challenged. The Delhi High Court, held that a company can be arrayed as an accused vide Section 319 as the evidence on record showed the company’s complicity in the crime. Subsequently, the matter was carried into appeal by the newly added company before the Hon’ble Apex Court in M.Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15 OF 2019 of Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed. This view was also taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Mahesh Singh Jadon v. Shri Radha Sharan Dubey, Misc. Criminal Case No. 16492 of 2022- dated 19.07.2022- High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Gwalior 18. State of NCT of Delhi, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.15 OF 2019 of Hon’ble Supreme Court which was dismissed. This view was also taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Mahesh Singh Jadon v. Shri Radha Sharan Dubey, Misc. Criminal Case No. 16492 of 2022- dated 19.07.2022- High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Gwalior 18. In the case on hand, de facto complainant entered into an agreement with newly added accused i.e., M/s. Swarna See Foods Limited, for keeping their stock in cold storage, subject to the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is in this context of certain irregularities in the keeping of the stock, de facto complainant put the criminal law into force. The impugned order would reveal that it is essential to add the company as proforma accused because it entered the agreement with the de facto complainant and it is a registered company vide Companies Act. A registered company is a legal person possessing rights and liabilities like a natural person. A company is a legal entity capable of entering into contracts, holding properties and is also competent to sue or be sued. In such view, the addition of a company is within the realm of power under Section 319 as the phrase “any person” employed includes both natural and legal persons. 19. Further, the record shows that the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the prosecution when the evidence is completed and the matter reached the stage of arguments i.e., fag end of the trial. It is apposite to observe that vide Section 319, the provision enables the spectrum for application “in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence”. This phrase is elaborated by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in Sukhpal Singh (supra) as referred above. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the reliance of the learned counsel of the petitioner on Ajay Kumar (supra), offers no help as the exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate vide Section 319 is well within the boundaries of law and settled precedents. 20. Therefore, in the light of the legal position referred to supra, after noticing the facts, and stage of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned brooks interference of this Court in revision. Absolutely, no grounds to interfere in the order impugned. 20. Therefore, in the light of the legal position referred to supra, after noticing the facts, and stage of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned brooks interference of this Court in revision. Absolutely, no grounds to interfere in the order impugned. Consequently, this Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed by confirming the order impugned dated 25.02.2009, in Crl.M.P.No. 372 of 2009 in C.C.53 of 2003 passed by the learned Magistrate. Since the Calendar Case pertains to the year 2003, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case, within a period two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both parties shall co-operate for disposal of the case, according to law, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.