vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.794 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.794 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.794 OF 2008 Vijay Kumar Agarwal & Ors. ... Applicants V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.H. Ponda a/w G.B. Kedia for Applicants Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP, for Respondent No.1 Mr.Shailesh H. Bajaj, C.A. of Respondent No.2, present Mr.Subhash Jha for Respondent No.3 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 31, 2008 MARCH 31, 2008 MARCH 31, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This application challenges the order passed by the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing separation of the case against accused No.4. Initially, the complaint was filed by respondent No.2 u/s 406 r/w 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the applicants and one more person. This complaint it appears was filed in the year 1999. Thereafter, an application was preferred by Respondent No.2, under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code for adding Respondent No.3 herein as a co-accused. The learned Magistrate while allowing the application has directed that the case against accused No.4 be separated. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate has done so in view of the fact that this Court had directed the trial which was proceeded against the petitioner to be decided within a stipulated period. Relying on the judgment in the case of Murali @ : 2 : Muraleedharan v/s. State of Kerala 1999 Cr.L.J. 1670 1999 Cr.L.J. 1670 1999 Cr.L.J. 1670, the learned Magistrate has separated the trial against the accused No.4. 2. A bare perusal of section 319 indicates that a person can be added as an accused at any point of time if there is sufficient material to indicate that he has committed an offence. On the application made by the complainant, Respondent No.3 which is a private limited company of which the Petitioners are the directors, has been added as accused No.4. The Supreme Court in several decisions which are cited at the bar viz., Michael Machado & anr. v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation & anr., (2000) 3 SCC 262 (2000) 3 SCC 262 (2000) 3 SCC 262; Krishnappa v/s. State of Karnataka, (2004) 7 SCC 792 (2004) 7 SCC 792 (2004) 7 SCC 792; Lok Ram v/s. Nihalsingh & Anr., (2006) 10 SCC 192; (2006) 10 SCC 192; (2006) 10 SCC 192; Ratilal Bhanji & Ors. v/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 94 AIR 1978 SC 94 AIR 1978 SC 94 and Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir & Ors. v/s. State of Bihar & Anr., (2007) SCC (cri) 521 (2007) SCC (cri) 521 (2007) SCC (cri) 521 have held in no uncertain terms that when the Magistrate exercises powers under section 319 and a person is added as an accused, he would have to be tried as a co-accused and not in a separate trial. 2. In these circumstances, the impugned order would have to be set aside. Respondent No.3 must be tried as a co-accused in the same trial in accordance with law : 3 : and, therefore, there is no need for separation of the cases. The matter to be disposed of expeditiously especially in view of the earlier orders which have been passed and bearing in mind the advanced age of Respondent No.2. 3. Criminal application is disposed of accordingly.