Judgment S.C.Mookherji, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an order dated 15-7-86 passed by Shri I.B. Dwivedi, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Samastipur in Tr. No. 1968 of 1986 whereby and whereunder, a charge under Sec. 409, Indian Penal Code has been framed against the petitioner who was the informant in the case. 2. It is not necessary to state the facts of the case in any detail for the disposal of this application. A bare skeleton of them will suffice. On 2nd August, 1972, the present petitioner, who was then posted as Community Project Officer (I. N. D ) Rural Industries Project in the district of Darbbanga, lodged an information with the police stating, inter alia, that opposite party Ram Chandra Deo, Cashier in that project dishonestly misappropriated a sum of Rs. 14000.00 between the period from 3-4-1971 to 1-6-1971 and thereby, rendered himself liable for prosecution under Sec. 408 of the Indian Penal Code. After submission of chargesheet by the police, cognizance of the offence under Section 408, I. P.C. was taken and a charge under that section was framed against the said Ramchandra Deo on 27-1-1977 by the then Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur. Thereafter, two witnesses were examined in that case. While the case was proceeding, a petition under Sec.319 of the Cr. P.C. was filed by accused opposite party No. 2, Ramchandra Deo, for making the petitioner-informant as an accused and it was rejected by an order dated 11-9-78. Against that order, a Criminal Revision No. 1054 of 1978 was filed before this court and it was disposed of with an observation that if the material come against the petitioner, then it will be open to learned Magistrate to exercise power under Sec.219 of the Cr. P.C. In the meantime, the prosecution examined some more witnesses (P. Ws. 3 to 8) including the petitioner. Thereafter, by an order dated 15-9-83 the successor in office of the first Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur on an application filed by the accused Ramchandra Deo-opposite party No. 2 after considering the evidence and other facts and circumstances issued summons to the petitioner. Against that order another Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 1983 was preferred before this Court in which a direction was given to the petitioner to take steps for redressal of his genuine grievance at the stage of framing of charge. This order was passed on 16-2-84. Against that order another Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 1983 was preferred before this Court in which a direction was given to the petitioner to take steps for redressal of his genuine grievance at the stage of framing of charge. This order was passed on 16-2-84. At the time of framing of charge, entire matter was reconsidered and the learned Magistrate after hearing the parties and considering the evidence and the documents available on the record passed the order impugned. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly raised three points viz : (i) that when once it was found by a competent Magistrate that there was material to proceed against the petitioner, there was no justification on the part of bis successor in office to take a contrary view, (ii) that the accused has no right to move the court under the provisions of Sec.319, Cr. P.C. that the informant be made an accused and jointly tried with him, and (iii) that in absence of sufficient evidence to warrant conviction of the petitioner the court was not justified in framing a charge against him. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State, Shri J. P. Shukla, has taken stand that in view of the directions of this Court in the subsequent, revision, the Magistrate was fully justified to look into the evidence of all the witnesses recorded by that time and when a prima facie case for an offence under Sec. 409, I. P.C. was found after proper consideration of the evidence the learned Magistrate was duty bound to order for framing an appropriate charge against the petitioner. Ha has further submitted that the petitioner now cannot question the power of the Magistrate exercised under Sec.319, Cr. P.C. in view of the orders of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 1983. It has also been submitted that the power of the Magistrate under Sec.319 of the Cr. P.C. is wide enough and he can exercise it suo motu or on an application by any one connected with the case to direct any person to face the trial if he is satisfied that there are materials against him to proceed against. The maintainability of this application under sections 397 and 402 has also been questioned on the ground that the order impugned being an interlocutory one, is hit by Sec.397 (2) of the Cr. The maintainability of this application under sections 397 and 402 has also been questioned on the ground that the order impugned being an interlocutory one, is hit by Sec.397 (2) of the Cr. P. C. 5. The points raised on behalf of the petitioner may be taken up in the manner they are placed. It appears that after examination of two witnesses when an application was made by the accused-opposite party No. 2 under Sec.319, Cr. P.C. it was rejected by first Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate on the ground of insufficient evidence. If his successor in office had acted again on the same evidence, the position perhaps would have been a different one. But as pointed out, a revision application was filed against the order of the first Magistrate refusing to issue processes against the petitioner and on the direction of the Court at a subsequent stage after examination of as many as six witnesses including the petitioner when the matter was reagitated, the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioner as he was satisfied that sufficient materials are there to proceed against the petitioner. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the same evidence which was earlier not accepted by a competent court for not proceeding against the petitioner was acted upon by his successor in office has no merit. 6. Coming to the second point that the accused has no right to move the court to invoke the provisions of Sec.319, Cr. P. C it would be useful to quote the relevant portion of that section. Sec.319 (1) Cr. P.C. 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. 7. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the court cannot summon the informant of a case to face trial with the accused of that case and that too, on an application filed on behalf of the accused, who has no right to ask that he should also be tried along with him. Reliance in this context has been placed by the learned counsel on Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia and Ors. Reliance in this context has been placed by the learned counsel on Lakshmandas Chaganlal Bhatia and Ors. V/s. The State -- . Alternatively, it has been submitted that at best in the given situation the trial of the petitioner can be separately dealt with and not along with the accused-opposite party No. 2. In the case cited, a complaint was made that the court summarily rejected an application made by the accused under Sec.351 (old) Cr. P.C. and their Lordships while dealing with this question reiterated the view taken in an earlier decision reported in 1964 (66) Bom. L.R. 17, wherein it was held that the accused had no right to make a demand that some one else even if an accomplice be tried along with him, observed that "the purpose of this was obviously to prevent his being examined as a witness at the trial," 8. A similar point was raised in Mohan Wahi V/s. State (Central Bureau of Investigation) New Delhi 1982 Cr. L.J. p. 2040, in which the aforesaid two Bombay decisions were considered and it was observed that "the power under Sec.319, Criminal Procedure Code could be exercised by the court either suo motu or on application by any one including the accused standing trial before the court but the discretion to act under the provisions lay entirely with the court which was bound to exercise it judicially having regard to the facts of each case, Where it finds that the purpose of the move is to prevent an accomplice from appearing as a witness in a court and defeat the prosecution the court may decline to act." 9. Sec.351 (old) Cr. P.C. has been made more comprehensive and detailed in the line of recommendation of law commission and the present Sec.319 has been incorporated in the new Code. Therefore, there cannot be two views that a Magistrate is duty bound to find out who the offenders really are and if he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the police, some other is also involved, it is his duty to proceed against him by invoking the provisions of new Sec.319 of the Code. The scope of Sec.319, Cr P. C, was considered by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. -- , and their Lordships observed that Sec.319 of Cr. The scope of Sec.319, Cr P. C, was considered by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. -- , and their Lordships observed that Sec.319 of Cr. P.C. gives ample powers to any Court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him along with the other accused. in these circumstances, therefore, if the prosecution can at any stage produce evidence which satisfies the Court that the other accused or those who have not been arrayed as accused against whom proceedings have been quashed have also committed the offence the Court can take cognizance against them and try them along with the other accused. But, this 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 cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. 10. It has already been pointed out that during the course of trial it was brought to the notice of the Court about the involvement of the petitioner in the offences alleged. No doubt, in the initial stage, the court refused to proceed against the petitioner but later on, after examination of a number of witnesses the court on being satisfied with the evidence and documents adduced that there were materials to proceed against him, passed the order impugned. It is, no doubt, true that an accused has no right to insist upon the court to summon a person to be tried with him, but then, there is no bar in bringing the involvement of some other person in the offence(s) alleged to the notice of the court for its due consideration and it is for the court to consider it judicially to find out the truth. In short, there is no escape from the conclusion that the ambit, scope and effect of Sec.319 of the new Code are to give ample powers to the Courts either suo matu or an approach by any person connected with the case, which may include an accused, to direct any person to face the trial if he is satisfied that there are materials against him to proceed against. The two Bombay decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not of much assistance in this case as the said decisions have been rendered prior to the coming into force of the new Cr. P.C. I, therefore, find no illegality in the order of learned Magistrate in entertaining the petition filed by the accused to find out the truth before summoning the petitioner and then ordering to frame a charge against him. 11. Coming to the alternative submission that the trial of the petitioner could be separated on the ground that the purpose of the accused-opposite party No. 1 is to defeat his prosecution, it may be pointed out that in appropriate case the court may pass an order for separate trial, if it is of the view that the move of the accused is to prevent a person to appear as a witness against him. But in the instant case, at two stages while issuing summons to the petitioner to appear as an accused and then an order to frame a charge against him, this aspect of the matter surely had not escaped the notice of the court. As a matter of fact, the court while passing the orders took into consideration the evidences and documents produced and not solely acted upon the evidence of the petitioner and documents available on the record. That apart, on the facts and circumstances, it is not necessary that there should be a separate trial. The Criminal Procedure Code gives ample rights to an accused to place bis defence. Thus, this contention has also no force. 12. The third and the last point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that even the evidence on record is insufficient to warrant conviction of the petitioner. In this connection, the learned counsel has referred to certain portions of the evidence of the witnesses examined and has further submitted that in the initial stage the prosecution also opposed the prayer of the accused-opposite party No. 2 to add the petitioner as an accused under Sec.319 of the Cr. P.C. It is premature at this stage to say anything about the evidence that has come on record, It is for the trial court to assess and evaluate the entire evidence at the appropriate stage and to judge whether the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution warrants conviction of the petitioner or not. P.C. It is premature at this stage to say anything about the evidence that has come on record, It is for the trial court to assess and evaluate the entire evidence at the appropriate stage and to judge whether the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution warrants conviction of the petitioner or not. At this stage, I refrain from giving any observation/comment in that regard. But it cannot be said that there is no evidence to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner suggesting his involvement in the offences alleged. There is, thus, no substance in this contention of the petitioner. 13. In view of my findings arrived at, it is not necessary to go to the question of maintainability of this application raised on behalf of the State. 14. In fine, I find no merit in this application, it is accordingly dismissed. As the case is lingering since long for various reasons, effective steps now should be taken by the concerned court to dispose it of with the least possible delay. The court below is, therefore, directed to take up the case on priority basis. Let the lower court record be sent to the learned Magistrate at once.