IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25333 of 2007 SIPAHI MISTRY, son of Raghu Mistry, resident of village Mohiuddinpur, P. S. Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda. … Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR … Opposite party ----------- 7. 30.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. There would be hardly any quarrel on the issue that the Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in the event of discovery of any material against a person whose traces were not there in the first information report nor he was yet sent up, can still summon such person for facing the trial. In fact it would not be correct on the part of the petitioner to feel that he has been summoned by the court in view of observation made by an earlier order of this Court inasmuch as the impugned order atleast does not say so. This Court in fact would find from the impugned order that the court below has applied its mind and has come to a prima facie conclusion that Vishundhari Prasad was only a middle man and the actual role in course of alleged misappropriation and cheating for - 2 - offences under Section 409 and 420 was played by the petitioner in capacity of an agent and therefore if such allegation have to be looked into in course of the pending trial, it cannot be said that the presence of the petitioner as an accused would be in violation of spirit Section 319 of the code of criminal procedure. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)