HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9731 OF 2009 Date: 27-09-2010 Between: Kota Bharathi. --- Petitioner/A-4. And G. Vinayak Reddy and The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9731 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner who is impleaded as A-4 in C.C. No.230 of 2008 by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, questions Order dated 02-09-2009 passed by that Court in Crl.M.P. No.1936 of 2009 therein by which she was impleaded by exercising power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The first respondent/complainant filed the complaint in the lower Court alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act) against A-1 to A-3. A-1 is a partnership firm. A-2 is managing partner of A-1. A-3 who is wife of A-2 is stated to be another partner of A-1. A-2 was representing A-1 firm in the case. While so, A-2 died after filing of the case in the lower Court. The complainant filed Criminal M.P. No.1936 of 2009 in the lower Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for impleading A-4 as another accused in this case on the ground that she is a partner of A-1. The complainant filed copies of Partnership Deed dated 18-10-1993 and agreement of sub-franchise dated 21-08-2008. According to the complainant, those documents prima-facie show that the petitioner/A-4 is one of the partners of A-1 firm. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. instead of filing the revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, I propose to consider whether order passed by the lower Court is in accordance with law. Section 319 (1) Cr.P.C. reads as follows : “(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.” The petitioner’s counsel also placed reliance on Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab[1] of the Supreme Court in support of his contention. There is no dispute that the matter is pending in the lower Court and that trial of the case is yet to begin in the lower Court. In such an event, the lower Court could not have invoked Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead A-4 in this case. It is only after recording evidence the Court has to consider impleading of any other accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. On that technical ground, order of the lower Court cannot stand. 2. In the result, the Petition is allowed setting aside the Order dated 02-09-009 passed by the XIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P. No.1936 of 2009 in C.C. No.230 of 2008 impleading A-4. At the same time, it is open to the complainant to renew his application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the lower Court at the appropriate stage. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date: 27-09-2010. DSH [1] AIR 1998 SC 3148