JUDGMENT : Gobind Mohan Mishra, J. In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner prays for quashing the ORDER :dated 6.1.77 passed by the learned Magistrate Sri W. Minz, in G. R. case No. 943-A of 1976 by which he issued process against the petitioner for putting him on trial in the aforesaid case. The relevant facts are these: 2. A first information report was lodged by one S. Prakash Rao, Security Supervisor of Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company (Telco), Jamshedpur, on 19.5.1976 alleging that on that date he was on duty at about 11.45 A. M. when he saw one Satyanarayan Thakur along with his Cycle approaching a handbag lying on the ground in foundry and forge area of Telco and picking it up. Satyanarayan Thakur went with the bag to the petitioner who was on the road with his scooter. When the informant followed them the petitioner fled away with his scooter after throwing the bag and Satyanarayan Thakur tried to escape with the bag on his cycle but was caught along with the bag after a chase. The bag was containing some air Governors and Tyre Inflating bottles. The Golmuri police registered a case on the first information report and after completing the investigation subjected charge-sheet before: the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur only against Satyanarayan Thakur under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. In column 2 of the charge sheet it was indicated that the petitioner was not sent up for trial. On 4.8.1976 the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate took cognizance in the case on the basis of the police report (charge sheet) and transferred the case to Sri W. Minz, Judicial Magistrate, second class. In the court of Mr. Minz on 6.1.1977 the informant filed an application for issue of summons against the petitioner for putting him on trial. On the same day the Informant also filed process for issue of dasti warrant against the petitioner; On 6.1.1977 Sri W. Minz, the learned Magistrate who was in seisin of the case, passed the impugned ORDER :allowing the prayer of the informant and for issuing dasti warrant against the petitioner for putting him on trial. It is against that ORDER :that the present application has been filed. 3. It is against that ORDER :that the present application has been filed. 3. Before dealing with the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner it may be stated that as already indicated above, charge sheet had been submitted against only Satyanarain Thakur under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code on which cognizance was taken by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. The case was obviously triable by the learned Magistrate to whom it had been transferred but before he proceeded with the trial and took any evidence in the case he passed the impugned ORDER :on the application of the informant, as already stated above. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for assailing the impugned ORDER :is that the learned Magistrate, Sri Minz, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned ORDER :for putting the petitioner on trial in the aforesaid circumstances without taking any evidence in the case. In developing this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 which provides as follows:- 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 enquiry 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 pf 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. 4. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now this is the only provision under which a Magistrate holding an enquiry or trial in a case is authorised to put any person on trial if he is not an accused in the case. In other words, if a person has not been shown as sent up for trial in the police report on which cognizance bas been taken in the case it will not, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, be within the powers of the Magistrate to whom the case is sent for trial to put any other person on trial unless he is satisfied that there is a case made out against him on the evidence led before him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, In this connection, relied upon a bench decision of this court in (1) Satya Narayan Yadav Versus the State of Bihar (1977 Patoa Law Journal Reports 515) in which it has been held that the power of the Magistrate holding an enquiry or trail, to proceed against other persons in respect of offences which they appear to have committed is circumscribed by the limited circumstances mentioned In Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It bas further been held in that case that before such a Magistrate proceeds against a person who has not appeared as an accused before him it must appear from the evidence led before him that such person has committed an offence. It has also been held that the expression 'evidence' in Section 319 means evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act or expressly made admissible by the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the authority of this decision the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner must prevail. I therefore, hold that in the circumstances set forth above, Mr. W. Minz. the learned Magistrate to whom the case was transferred, had no powers to put the petitioner on trial without having recourse to the provisions of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he could put the petitioner on trial only after some evidence was adduced before him and he came to the conclusion on that evidence that some case had been made out against the petitioner. The ORDER :of the learned Magistrate, Sr. The ORDER :of the learned Magistrate, Sr. W. Minz, dated 6.1.1977 issuing process against the petitioner for putting him on trial in G. R. Case No. 943-A of 1976 suffers from legal infirmity and is, therefore, set aside. 5. The application is allowed accordingly. Application allowed.