JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision is preferred against the order dated 4-6-1984 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sundargarh; issuing summons to the Petitioner to appear in the Court for being tried along with other accused persons on a charge u/s 307. Indian Penal Code in relation to an occurrence of assault on Laxman Panda ( P.W. 8) and Gopinath Paikray ( P.W. 1) on 4-11-1981 at Rajgangpur. 2. The accused opposite parties 2 to 5 were facing their trial in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, on a charge u/s 307, Indian Penal Code. After the examination of P.W. 8 was overt on 27-4-1984 the learned, Assistant Sessions Judge allowing the application made by the State u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned the Petitioner to stand trial as an accused in the above case. Hence the Petitioner files this revision. 3. It is the settled position of law that Section 319. Code of Criminal Procedure gives ample powers to a criminal court to take cognisance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him along with the other accused, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other person has also committed the offence. Mr. Mund, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relied on, the decisions in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others, and Sk. Mangal and Ors. v. State 62 (1986) C.L.T. 261, wherein it was held that the power u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognisance against the other person against whom section has not been taken. 4. On a perusal of the impugned order it is seen that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has not properly applied her mind in judging the evidence against: the Petitioner, She referred to P.Ws. 1,5. 6. 7 and 8 as eye-witnesses, but on a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 7 it is seen that admittedly he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Likewise on a scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 1,5. 6. 7 and 8 as eye-witnesses, but on a perusal of the evidence of P.W. 7 it is seen that admittedly he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Likewise on a scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 it is seen that there is nothing in their evidence to suggest that the Petitioner had actually assaulted either P.W. 1 or P.W. 8, the injured persons in the case. The impugned order as a cryptic order and there is no express reference to the evidence which weighed with the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for invoking the powers u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure against the Petitioner. The evidence of the I. O. P.W. 9 discloses that it was only after duly investigating into the case, that: the I. O. has found that it would not be proper to include the name of the Petitioner also as one of the' accused persons in the case, while filing the charge-sheet. Neither the impugned order, nor the material on record, discloses the existence of any such compelling reasons so as to justify the exercise of the extraordinary powers conferred on the court u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. In view of my above discussion on the scope on Section 319. Code of Criminal Procedure, the impugned order is not maintainable in law and the same is therefore, set aside and the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner is quashed and the revision petition is accordingly allowed. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case. The case records be sent back to the trial court immediately. Final Result : Allowed