JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. 1. This petition, under Section 482 CrPC, is directed against so much of the order, dated 20-11-1982, passed by Sri Brahma Singh, III Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, whereby petitioner Narendra Kumar Srivastava has been directed to be impleaded as co-accused in a criminal trial for an offence under Section 409 IPC. 2. Petitioner Narendra Kumar Srivastava was a Naib Tehsildar when certain monies were defalcated from the treasury of which Ram Iqbal Vishwakarma was treasury officer, Ram Vibhuti Ram, opposite party no. 3, was Tehsildar, and opposite party no. 4 Munna Singh was cashier. Ram Vibhuti Ram made a report to the police against Munna Singh stating that he had taken away the keys of the single lock and certain boxes. When an inspection was made by the Treasury Officer, by breaking open the lock, not only of the single lock but also the double lock, certain monies were found short. The Treasury Officer, Ram Iqbal Vishwakarma, then lodged two separate reports regarding defalcation of monies against Ram Vibhuti Ram and Munna Singh. The reports having been investigated, charge sheet was submitted to the court against Ram Vibhuti Ram and Munna Singh. Munna Singh raised a plea of non-maintainability of prosecution in the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. His objection having been over-ruled, he filed Cr. Revision No. 97 of 1982 which figured for disposal before Sri Brahma Singh, III Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, resulting in the impugned order. Besides other observations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the record prima facie showed that the Tehsildar (Ram Vibhuti Ram) and Naib Tehsildar (petitioner, Narendra Kumar Srivastava) connived in misappropriating the government money. He upheld the view of the trial court that sanction was not required and while dismissing the revision directed, inter alia, that the petitioner Narendra Kumar Srivastava be impleaded as a co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while acting under the provisions of Section 397 CrPC as a court of revision, was not competent to direct that the petitioner be impleaded as a co-accused. It has been urged by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 3, Ram Vibhuti Ram, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was competent to pass the impugned order in view of the powers contained in Section 319 (1) CrPC. It has been urged by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 3, Ram Vibhuti Ram, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was competent to pass the impugned order in view of the powers contained in Section 319 (1) CrPC. His contention has been supported by the learned Government Advocate. 4. Section 319 (1) CrPC runs as follows :- "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 important expression in this provision is "in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence". The question is whether a court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be said to be a court holding an inquiry or a trial. The Code of Criminal Procedure has distinct provisions for holding an inquiry, trial or a revision and it appears to me that exercise of jurisdiction in revision cannot bus said to be an exercise of jurisdiction in the course of an inquiry or a trial. Learned counsel for opposite parties contend that if the powers exercisable under Section 319(1) CrPC are confined to those exercisable only by a Magistrate, then the entire purpose would be frustrated. The statute, as it stands, has to be given its plain meaning. The expression 'inquiry', 'trial', 'appeal' and 'revision' have been used in the Code of Criminal Procedure to signify distinct proceedings governed by distinct procedures, and it is not open to extend the procedure of one kind of proceeding into that of the other. It is a different matter that in one particular type of proceeding, another type of proceeding may arise and the two types of proceedings may be conducted in their own independent way. This, in a revision under Section 397 CrPC, occasion may arise to hold an inquiry for an offence under Section 193 IPC; but the revision and the inquiry would have to be held in their own way according to their separate procedures. 5. This, in a revision under Section 397 CrPC, occasion may arise to hold an inquiry for an offence under Section 193 IPC; but the revision and the inquiry would have to be held in their own way according to their separate procedures. 5. If a Magistrate or a court, in exercise of its powers of inquiry or trial, finds from the evidence that a person, not being accused of an offence, may be tried together with the accused standing trial, it may proceed against such person under Section 319 CrPC for the offence which he appears to have committed. IF that is done, it may be open to be questioned in a proceeding under Section 397 CrPC. A proceeding under Section 397 CrPC has to be a proceeding within the limited field set forth within that section. 6. Section 397 (1) CrPC runs as follows :- "The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record." The relevant expressions, for the purpose of the present case are "examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court", "correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed" and "the regularity of any proceeding of such inferior court." The court acting under Section 397 CrPC is required to examine the "proceedings" of an inferior court and having done; so, to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality or propriety of a finding in those proceedings. The question considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the present case, was whether Narendra Kumar Srivastava should or should not be prosecuted with the other accused persons. The question considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the present case, was whether Narendra Kumar Srivastava should or should not be prosecuted with the other accused persons. If the Magistrate below holding the inquiry or the court holding the trial had recorded a finding that there was a cause for prosecution of Narendra Kumar Srivastava, that finding would have been a part of its proceedings, and those proceedings would have been open to question under Section 397 CrPC before the Court of Session. Since the inferior court did not record any finding on the question of the culpability of Narendra Kumar Srivastava, the question of prosecution of Narendra Kumar Srivastava was not a matter which could be said to have arisen out of any proceedings before the inferior court within the meaning of Section 397 (1) CrPC. 7. Learned counsel for opposite parties) urged that, after all, the superior courts cannot be totally deprived of their competence to put a person on trial, if on the material on record, it is found that he has committed an offence. The contention needs to be qualified. A superior court may examine the record of a case in two ways : (i) on an application by a party under Section 397 (3) CrPC, or (ii) suo motu. Where action is taken on an application, the powers are limited to the specific powers set forth in Section 397, where action is taken suo motu, the powers ares slightly enlarged in view of Section 399 (1) CrPC. It is not necessary to elaborate the powers of the Court of Session acting suo motu because, in this case, the Court of Session did not act suo motu but on an application made. A Court of Session acting on application and having regard to the above-stated scheme of law, is not competent to direct the prosecution of a person. It does not even appear to be competent to invite the attention of the trial or inquiry court to the material on record and direct it to consider whether, on the material on record, there could be a case for prosecution of the person concerned. It does not even appear to be competent to invite the attention of the trial or inquiry court to the material on record and direct it to consider whether, on the material on record, there could be a case for prosecution of the person concerned. The power to direct to hold an inquiry into the complicity of any person in an offence is confined under Section 398 CrPC, while dealing with a case under Section 397 CrPC to a person who has been discharged by the inferior court; and even that direction has to be made after giving an opportunity to show cause under the Proviso to Section 398 CrPC. 8. The inferior court is competent to proceed on its own in accordance with Section 319 CrPC independently and freely and pass the requisite orders. That order itself would be open to challenge before the superior court under Section 397 CrPC or even before the High Court under 401 or 482 CrPC. After all, a person, who is going to be prosecuted out of the blue, cannot be deprived of such opportunities of defending himself, and preventing his prosecution, as the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for. An order in revision, directing the petitioner straightaway to be prosecuted, deprives him of those valuable rights. I am not satisfied, therefore, that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while functioning under Section 397 CrPC was competent in law to direct that petitioner Narendra Kumar Srivastava be impleaded as a co-accussed. The petition is allowed and so much of the order, dated 29-11-1982, of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, is set aside as directs that petitioner Narendra Kumar Srivastava shall be impleaded as co-accused; it is open to the trial court to consider the applicability of Section 319 CrPC Independently and without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, in the impugned order. Petition allowed.