JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This criminal revi,sion is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class- Parlakhemundi taking cognizance against the Petitioner of offences u/s 384, 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Few facts may be stated. Prosecution case was that a public meeting' was held at Parlakhemundi on 25-12-1978 in the afternoon. [n that meeting the Petitioner and otbers addressed the pub1ic and protested against the excesses committed by the police while holding Mobile Courts. Allegations were also made against the police personnel to the effect tbat they were realising money as fines in the Mobile Courts and were misappropriating the same Later. There was a procession in the town. The Petitioner and other leaders of the proe ession forced the shop-keepers to close down the shutters. They also realised money. from some of them after holding out threats of bodily injuries. Being forced. shop-keepers closed down and some of them palted with money. On these allegations. F.I.R. was drawn up by the OftiCt!r-in-charge of Parlakhemundi P.S. On 29-12-1978 and the case was investigated. After closure of investigation charge sbeet was submitted against the Petitioner and 7 others for having committed offences under Sections 143/504 and 595, I.P.C. 3. Learned Judicia Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Sections 143 and 504, I.P.C. against the Petitioner and others and issues processes. Against this order, Petitioner and 2 others filed Criminal Revision, No. 35/80 in this Court which was reported in Govinda Das Panda and Others Vs. State of Orissa. According to this Court, there was no prima facie case against Petitioners of that case and so order of cognizance under Sections 143 and 504, I.P.C. passed against them was quashed. It was however, observed that in case during trial offences under the aforesaid Sections could be made Out by the prosecution then the Judicial Magistrate would be free to proceed against them under the provisions of Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure Subsequent to passing of this order, other accused persons filed Criminal Revision No. 159/82 in which order of cognizance was quashed vide D. Venkata Rao and 4 Ors. v. State of Orissa 59 (1985) C.L.T. 46 4. v. State of Orissa 59 (1985) C.L.T. 46 4. Even after quashing of the order of cognizance as referred to above against all the accused persons, when the records went back to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, he considered the materials available in the police case diary and took cognizance of offences under Sections 384 and 427 read with Section 34, I.P.C. against an of rhem. It is only one of the Petitioners who has challenged the said order. 5. Mr. H.M. Dhal, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that assuming all facts presented by the prosecution are correct, yet no case under Sections 384 and 427 I.P.C. was made out against the Petitioner. He further submits that the provisions of Section 319. Code of Criminal Procedure were riot at all applicable and relied upon a decision reported in Narendra Das and 4 Ors. v. State of Orissa 63 (1957) C.L.T. 476. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other band, urged that materials disclosed at least a prima facie case u/s 384 I.P.C against the Petitioner. 6. Manifestly provisions of sections, 319 Code of Criminal Procedure were not at all applicable to this case in view of the, settled principle to the effect that powers u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by a Court in course of trial. If it appears from the evidence before it that any offence has been committed by some person who has not been arrayed as an accused, in that event the Court can try the said person along with others who were being tried before it. In support of the above view, reference may be made to the case of Narendra Das and Others Vs. State of Orissa, in which several decisions of other High Courts and Supreme Court were considered. In the present case, trial had not commenced and evidence had not been recorded and so the stage had not arrived to find out if there was a prima facie case against the same accused of same other offences so as to try him along with persons who were being tried before the Court. In the present case, trial had not commenced and evidence had not been recorded and so the stage had not arrived to find out if there was a prima facie case against the same accused of same other offences so as to try him along with persons who were being tried before the Court. Considering the aforesaid principles of law as well as facts of the case, I am in agreement with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it was not a case to apply the provisions of Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure The learned Additional Government Advocate also rightly does not dispute the proposition. 7. For an offence u/s 427, I.P.C. the following ingredients are necessary: (i) intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person or public; (ii) causing destruction of some property or some change in such property; or in the situation thereof; (iii) such change destroys or diminishes its value or utility; and (iv) loss or damage amounts to not less than Rs. 50/-. Unless all the ingredients are available in a particular case cognizance for the offence u/s 427, I.P.C. cannot be lawfully taken. Having gone through the statements of all the witnesses, I find that the leaders of procession asked some shop-keepers to close down the shutters and accordingly they did so. No loss or damage was caused to any property. In the F.I.R. it was not mentioned that an offence of mischief bad been committed. Charge sheet was also not filed u/s 427, I.P.C. All that appears to have been done by the leaders of procession as that their intended to observe 'Hartal' as a measure of protest against the police excesses and for that reason, they requested the shop-keepers to close down their shops. The shop-keepers also did likewise. By this, on the admitted facts it cannot be found that a prima facie case of mischief u/s 427. I.P.C. was made out by the prosecution against the Petitioner. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am of the opinion that order of cognizance of offence u/s 427, I.P.C. against the Petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. By this, on the admitted facts it cannot be found that a prima facie case of mischief u/s 427. I.P.C. was made out by the prosecution against the Petitioner. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am of the opinion that order of cognizance of offence u/s 427, I.P.C. against the Petitioner cannot be sustained. 8. The next offence is u/s 384, I.P.C. for which prosecution must have to make out the following ingredients: (i) extortioner puts the complainant or other person in fear of injury; extortioner does so intentionally and; (ii) extortioner dishonestly induces the complainant to deliver to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security. In a Case, unless these ingredients are present, cognizance of an offence u/s 384, I.P.C. cannot be lawfully taken. In this case, many of the witnesses have stated that leaders of the procession collected subscriptions from shop keepers ranging from Re.1/- to Rs. 2/-. Only one or two witnesses stated that they were forced to pay subscription of fear of bodily injury, but the majority of them did not speak about force or through of bodily injury. The statements of 4 witnesses were recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure where they also did not utter a single word regarding collection of money by way of extortion from the shop keepers. For collection of subscription of Re.1/- to Rs. 2/- it was not necessary to put the person in fear of bodily injury. No case of extortion was made out in the F.I.R. Charge Sheet was also not submitted u/s 384, I.P.C. Manifestly, police did not and prima facie case against the Petitioner u/s 384, I.P.C. In the Circumstances, it is difficult to agree with the learned Judicial Magistrate that there was even a prima facie case u/s 384, I.P.C. 9. On consideration of the materials on ncord and in view of the facts narrated above, I am of the opinion that the order of cognizance against the Petitioner for the offence under Sections 384 and 427, I.P.C. cannot be supported. 10. In the result, therefore, criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order so far as the Petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed. The records may be despatched to the trial court forthwith. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed