JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - This revision raises the question as to what is the true meaning of the word "evidence" in Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). The aforesaid point arises for consideration in the following circumstances. On the basis of an F. I. R. lodged in Gurudijhatia Police,Station by one Adikanda Uttar Rai, the police registered a case and took up investigation. The said case was registered before the Magistrate as G. R. Case No. 250 of 1984 and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 6-2-1986. The charge-sheeted accused persons were summoned and they appeared before the Court and as the case was one exclusively triable by the Court of Session, they were committed to the Court of Session and the case was numbered as Sessions Case No. 209 of 1986. When the matter came before the learned Assistant Session Judge, he invoked the powers u/s 319 of the Code and on the basis of police papers which were before him directed issuance of summons against the present Petitioners who were not charge-sheeted accused persons, by his order dated 18-12-1986 and it is this order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge which is being impugned in the present revision. 2. Mr. Palit, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contends that a Court can exercise its power u/s 319 of the Code in course of trial if it appears from the evidence before him that any other person not being the accused has also committed the offence. According to Mr. Palit, therefore, there must be some,evidence before the Court before taking action u/s 319 of the Code. Admittedly, the trial has not begun and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has exercised his power u/s 319 on the basis of the police papers namely the statements recorded under of the Code and therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be in conformity with Section 319 of the Code. 3. In the case of Hukamaram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court considered the meaning of the word "evidence" used in section. 3. In the case of Hukamaram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court considered the meaning of the word "evidence" used in section. 319 of the Code and held that for the purpose of .Section 319, "evidence" would mean "evidence recorded" by the Sessions Judge during trial and not the statements u/s 161 of the Code of witnesses recorded by the police, nor the statements recorded u/s 164 or u/s 202 of the Code. The learned Single judge in the aforesaid case has relied upon an unreported decision of the said High Court in the case of Sheoram Singh v. State of Rajasthan D. B. Cri. Misc. Appln. No. 41/81. To the same effect is the decision of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Sunaram Tanti and Anr. v. State of Assam 1983 Cri. L. J. 289. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another while analysing the scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code held, A plain reading of Section 319 (1), which occurs in Chapter XXIV dealing with general provisions as to inquiries and trials, clearly shows that it applies to all the Courts including a Sessions Court: and as such a Sessions Court will have the power to add any person, not being the accused before it but against whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the other accused... (Underlining is mine). This decision has also been followed in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Others. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the powers u/s 319 of the Code can be exercised by a Court in course of trial if it appears from the evidence: before it that the offence in question has been committed by some person who has not been arrayed as an accused and the Court can try the said person along with others who are being tried before it. Obviously, therefore, this power cannot be exercised with reference to the police papers i.e., the statements recorded by the investigating agency u/s 161 of the Code. Obviously, therefore, this power cannot be exercised with reference to the police papers i.e., the statements recorded by the investigating agency u/s 161 of the Code. Hence, the impugned order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in so far as it relates to the persons who were not the charge-sheeted accused persons including the present Petitioners is hereby quashed. I, however, make it clear that in course of trial if the prosecution provides evidence which satisfies the trial Court that other persons who have not been arrayed as accused as well as the Petitioners against whom the order has been quashed have also committed the offence in question, then the Court can take cognisance against them and try them along with the other accused persons. I would further add that the power u/s 319 of the Code is really an extraordinary one and should be used sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognisance against the other persons against whom action has not been taken. I would reiterate that the fact that the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge has been quashed against the present Petitioners will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognisance against the present Petitioners has been made out on the evidence led before it. 4. In the ultimate result, therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the Assistant Sessions Judge is directed to continue the proceeding against the accused persons who have been committed by the learned Magistrate and dispose of the same bearing in mind the observations made by me earlier in this judgment. The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed