ORDER : 1. These two criminal miscellaneous cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these cases by a common order. 2. First, I will narrate the facts in Crl.M.C. No.4291/2017. Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order dated 04.05.2017 in Crl.R.P. No.17/2016 whereby the Sessions Judge, Kalpetta, Wayanad confirmed the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady in Crl.M.P. No.1701/2016 in C.C. No.256/2009. It is a case charge sheeted by the Police against six persons alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Annexure-A is the FIR and Annexure-B is the FI Statement in the above case. As per the final report filed based on Annexures A and B FIR and FI Statement, K.I.Moidheen, Abdul Latheef, P.U. Sulaiman, K.A.Nazar, Rameesh E.A. and Rayinkutty were arraigned as accused. The petitioners were not accused originally. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and has taken on file the case as C.C.No.256/2009. Thereafter the trial in the case started and the defacto complainant was examined as PW1 on 20.01.2016. Annexure-C is the deposition of PW1. Pursuant to Annexure-C, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed Annexure-D petition to add the petitioners also as accused stating that the investigating agency omitted their name. The learned Magistrate allowed that petition as per the order dated 25.10.2016 as evident by Annexure-E. Moreover, the Court dropped the proceedings against the six persons who were charged by the Police originally invoking the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. Annexure-F is that order. Aggrieved by the Annexure-E order, the petitioners who were implicated as accused, filed a revision before the Session Judge, Kalpetta. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Annexure-G is the order. Aggrieved by Annexures E and G orders, this criminal miscellaneous case is filed. 3. Crl.M.C. No.2490/2014 is filed by the defacto complainant in C.C. No.256/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Mananthavady. The above criminal miscellaneous case is filed with following prayers: 1) Pass an order entrusting the investigation into crime No. 320/2008 with the 2nd respondent and further to direct the 2nd respondent to conduct a thorough and meaningful further investigation into the said crime in a time bound manner and to submit a final report based on such investigation. 2) Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time. 2) Any other reliefs which may be prayed for from time to time. (SIC) 4. According to the petitioner/defacto complainant in the above case, the 1 st respondent Police, in order to save the original accused, implicated respondents 4 to 9. According to the petitioner/defacto complainant, a further investigation is necessary in the case. Hence this criminal miscellaneous case is filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Crl.M.C.No. 4291/2017 is filed against Annexures-E and G orders. It is a settled position that, the jurisdiction of this Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order passed by a revisional court is very limited. Unless there is any illegality or irregularity that goes to the root of the case, this Court need not interfere with the orders passed by the revisional court invoking the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. But a legal question is raised in this case. Annexure-E is an order passed by the learned Magistrate in an application filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. Annexure-D is the petition filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The prayer in Annexure-D is that the respondents (the petitioners herein) mentioned in that petition are to be tried along with the existing accused in that case invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. As mentioned earlier, the above application is allowed by the learned Magistrate as evident by Annexure-E. Annexure-E order was passed on 25.10.2016. Annexure-F is also another order passed by the learned Magistrate on the same date, i.e., on 25.10.2016, dropping the prosecution against the original accused Nos.1 to 6 invoking the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The legal question raised is that, when the learned Magistrate dropped the prosecution against all the accused in a final report, the learned Magistrate is functus officio to invoke the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C on the same day. I think there is a point to be decided in this case. 8. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads like this: “ Section 319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of: 1. I think there is a point to be decided in this case. 8. Section 319 Cr.P.C. reads like this: “ Section 319 – Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of: 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 cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced.” (underline supplied) 9. From Section 319 Cr.P.C, it is clear that, 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. Therefore, only when some accused are already there in a case, Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for trying some others also along with the existing accused. In other words, at the time when the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C are invoked, some person in the array of accused is necessary. There may not be any problem, if the existing accused are discharged or proceedings against them are dropped on subsequent dates, retaining the newly impleaded accused. That is the simple interpretation possible as per Section 319 Cr.P.C. 10. There may not be any problem, if the existing accused are discharged or proceedings against them are dropped on subsequent dates, retaining the newly impleaded accused. That is the simple interpretation possible as per Section 319 Cr.P.C. 10. In this case, on 25.10.2016, the learned Magistrate dropped the case against all the accused who were arrayed by the prosecution, exercising the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C and on the same day, added the petitioners as accused invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Section 258 Cr.P.C. says about the power to stop proceedings in certain cases. In any summons case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge. Therefore, once the learned Magistrate invokes the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and passes an order, it will be either an order of acquittal or an order of discharge. After passing such an order, the learned Magistrate is functus officio to invoke Section 319 Cr.P.C. because the same would amount to a review of the order passed under Section 258 Cr.P.C. Instead of dropping the case against all the accused, if the prosecution against some of the accused were dropped under Section 258 Cr.P.C or discharged, then there is a case pending and in such situation, an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked on that day itself. But, here is a case where the prosecution against all the accused arraigned in the final report are dropped as per Annexure-F order. In such circumstances, on the same day, the learned Magistrate has no power to invoke Section 319 of Cr.P.C. If Section 319 Cr.P.C. is invoked on a particular day and thereafter on the next day all the accused arrayed in the final report earlier are dropped, there may not be any illegality. But, if the orders under Sections 319 and 258 Cr.P.C are passed on the same day, there is legal infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. But, if the orders under Sections 319 and 258 Cr.P.C are passed on the same day, there is legal infirmity in the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. Once an order to stop the proceedings invoking Section 258 Cr.P.C. is passed, the learned Magistrate is functus officio to invoke the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 11. A constitutional bench of the Apex Court in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab , 2022 (7) KHC 593 considered a similar point. It will be better to extract the first substantial question of law framed by the constitutional bench: “Whether the Trial Court has the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order.” 12. The answer to the above substantial question is in paragraph No.33 of the judgment. The same is extracted hereunder: “33. For all the reasons stated above, we answer the questions referred as hereunder: “I. Whether the Trial Court has the power under S.319 of CrPC for summoning additional accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order? The power under S.319 of CrPC is to be invoked and exercised before the pronouncement of the order of sentence where there is a judgment of conviction of the accused. In the case of acquittal, the power should be exercised before the order of acquittal is pronounced. Hence, the summoning order has to precede the conclusion of trial by imposition of sentence in the case of conviction. If the order is passed on the same day, it will have to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case and if such summoning order is passed either after the order of acquittal or imposing sentence in the case of conviction, the same will not be sustainable.” 13. In the light of the above dictum, I have no doubt that the learned Magistrate erred in passing an order under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day. 14. Advocate Sri. In the light of the above dictum, I have no doubt that the learned Magistrate erred in passing an order under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the same day. 14. Advocate Sri. Sunny Mathew, who appeared for the defacto complainant, takes me through the Annexure- F order passed by the learned Magistrate invoking the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel specifically takes me through paragraph No.3 of Annexure-F and submitted that, a reading of the above paragraph would show that, Annexure-F order was passed after allowing Annexure-E order. In other words, the contention is that, the first order passed was Annexure-E order and thereafter the second order Annexure-F was passed and the same is clear from paragraph No.3 of Annexure-F order. I cannot agree with the learned counsel. While passing judicial orders/judgments, the time of passing the same is not relevant and the date of the order is important. If orders are passed on the same day, it will be treated as an order passed simultaneously. This Court cannot presume based on paragraph No.3 in Annexure-F that, Annexure-E and F orders are passed consecutively and not simultaneously. In that case, this court has to imagine, for example Annexure E order was passed at 11.00 AM on 25.10.2016 and Annexure-F order was passed at 11.05 AM. Such an interpretation is not possible while considering the judicial orders/judgments. Only the date of the order is important. Admittedly, Annexures E and F orders are passed on 25.10.2016. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, in the light of dropping the prosecution against all the existing accused as per Annexure-F order, the learned Magistrate has no power to pass an order under Section 319 Cr.P.C to implead a fresh set of accused on the same date. Moreover, a perusal of Annexure-D application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. also would show that the prayer of the Assistant Public Prosecutor is to implicate the respondents in Annexure-D application as additional accused for trying along with the present accused who faced the trial as per the final report. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate had gone beyond the prayers in Annexure-D and dropped the prosecution against all the accused in the final report on 25.10.2016 itself and allowed the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C as per Annexure-E order on the same day. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate had gone beyond the prayers in Annexure-D and dropped the prosecution against all the accused in the final report on 25.10.2016 itself and allowed the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C as per Annexure-E order on the same day. Hence, Annexure-E order is unsustainable for that simple reason. But, I make it clear that the defacto complainant has every right to challenge Annexure-F order pointing out the illegality. I am also of the considered opinion that Annexures E and G orders are to be set aside. 15. The prayer in Crl.M.C.No.2490/2014 is for a further investigation in C.C.No.256/2009. When the case itself is dropped by the learned Magistrate under Section 258 Cr.P.C and also in the light of the finding by me in this order, I am of the considered opinion that the prayers in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case are infructuous. Therefore, these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are disposed of with the following directions: (i) Crl.M.C.No.4291/2017 is disposed of setting aside Annexures E and G orders. (ii) Crl.M.C.No.2490/2014 is disposed of stating that no further order is necessary in the light of the order in Crl.M.C.No.4291/2017.