JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') issuing processes to the Petitioners. 2. The prosecution case state in brief is that on 28.9.1985 at about 1 P.M. the informant (P.W. 1) was performing agricultural operations in his paddy field. Accused Jagannath (not a party to this Criminal Revision) who was previously unknown to him, arrived at the field and at the instigation of the Petitioners assaulted him on his head and shoulders by means of a Kati, as a result of which he sustained severe bleeding injuries. He lodged information at Polasara Police Out Post, whereafter investigation was commenced and after completion thereof the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against accused Jagannath, Bipra and Siba for having committed offences under Sections 307, 323, 325 read with Sections 34 and 114 I.P.C. 3. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charge against accused Jagannath u/s 307 and against accused Bipra u/s 307 read with Section 114 I.P.C. The other accused, Siba was not available for trial and the case was split up as against him. When I hearing commenced, four witnesses were examined out of a list of sixteen witnesses, as stated in the charge-sheet including two police Officers and a Medical Officer. Out of these four witnesses, P.W. 1 is the informant, P.W. 2 is his wife, P.W. 3 is their son and P.W. 4 is a co-villager. After examination of these four witnesses, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed a petition far issuance of processes against the Petitioners an the ground that sufficient materials had been disclosed by the witnesses examined with regard to complicity of the Petitioners as having abetted the commission of the crime by accused Jagannatn. At that stage, Without Waiting far examination of the other prosecution witnesses, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge by the impugned order issued processes to the Petitioners. 4. Mr. At that stage, Without Waiting far examination of the other prosecution witnesses, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge by the impugned order issued processes to the Petitioners. 4. Mr. B.B. Ratha, the learned Counsel appearing far the Petitioners, urged that the evidence adduced as far does not warrant exercise of power u/s 319 of the Code, because the materials available against the Petitioners are flimsy and do not constitute legal evidence It is necessary to examine this contention with reference to the settled principle of law involved in several cases of the Supreme Court, as well as of this Court, with regard to exercise of power by Criminal Court u/s 319 of the Code. The law is that Section 319 gives simple power to the criminal Court to take cognisance and issue process against any person not being an accused before it and try him along with other accused. But this is an extraordinary power which has been conferred an the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist far taking cognisance against other persons against whom action had not been taken earlier. See AIR 1979 S.C. 389 ; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others, ; Dr. S.S. Khanna Vs. Chief Secretary, Patna and Another, ; Gagan Bihari Patnaik and Another Vs. State of Orissa, ; Gagan Bihari Patnaik and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Sk. Mangul and Others Vs. State and Others, . 5. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are related to each other. In view of same previous ill-feeling between the informant (P.W. 1) and the family of the Petitioners, the statements made by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have to be very closely scrutinised. P.W. 4 in his evidence has Stated that accused Jagannath made an extrajudicial confession stating that Petitioner Trinath Dora had paid him a sum of Rs. 1,000/- the previous day at Aska to murder the informant and promised to pay a sum of Rs. 9,000/- after the event. At the time of making the extrajudicial confession, he had been tied with a rape by the villagers. Having gone through the evidence of these witnesses very carefully. I am of the view that the evidence is not of such high quality so as to exercise power u/s 319 of the Code. 9,000/- after the event. At the time of making the extrajudicial confession, he had been tied with a rape by the villagers. Having gone through the evidence of these witnesses very carefully. I am of the view that the evidence is not of such high quality so as to exercise power u/s 319 of the Code. The learned Assistant Judge ought to have waited for examination of other witnesses in order to find out if it was a fit case to proceed against the Petitioner or any of them. He acted a bit hastily by exercising the power after examination of only four witnesses. 6. Taking an overall view of the facts and the law and the limitations of the Court for exercise of the power u/s 319 of the Code, I am of the opinion that the impugned order issuing process against the Petitioners was not warranted at that stage and so it is vacated. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge may now proceed with the trial and record evidence of other prosecution witnesses and if he would find that there are compelling reasons for issuance of process against other persons, he shall be free to do so in exercise of the power u/s 319 of the Code in accordance with law. 7. In the result, subject to the observations made above, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the impugned order issuing processes against the Petitioners is vacated. The trial shall now proceed. The L.C.R. shall be sent back at once. Final Result : Allowed