JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - In this case the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 325 and 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. against the Petitioners has been challenged. 2. P.W. 1 lodged F.I.R. culminating in G.R. Case No. 11 of 1987/T. R. No. 569 of 1987, in which cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 325 and 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. was taken against the proforma opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. At that stage cognizance of any of the offences was not taken against any of the Petitioners. During their examination. P.Ws. 1 and 2 stated that these Petitioners had also committed the offences. Without making a proper discussion, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 14-7-1988 on the application of the Assistant Public Prosecutor took cognizance of the offences against the Petitioners solely for the reason that the witnesses had uttered their names of having committed such offences. 3. Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') gives ample power to a criminal Court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him along with the other accused, if the prosecution satisfies by its evidence that the other persons have also committed the offence. But power u/s 319 of the Code has to be exercised very sparingly and only if there are compelling reasons. In Sk. Mangul and Others Vs. State and Others, and two Ors. a Bench of this Court held that before taking recourse to Section 319 of the Code, the Court must properly apply its mind and Judge the evidence against the persons to be added as the accused persons. An identical view was taken in 67(1989) C.L.T. 280, Gadadhar alias Gadadhar Binod v. State of Orissa and Ors., and it was held that the impugned order should not be cryptic and should expressly contain reference to the evidence which weighs with the Court for invoking the power u/s 319 of the Code. An identical view was taken in 67(1989) C.L.T. 280, Gadadhar alias Gadadhar Binod v. State of Orissa and Ors., and it was held that the impugned order should not be cryptic and should expressly contain reference to the evidence which weighs with the Court for invoking the power u/s 319 of the Code. When the principles laid down by these two decisions are applied to the facts of this case, it would appear that except stating the bare facts the learned Magistrate made no reference to all the facts and evidence which according to him appeared against the Petitioners so as to take cognizance of the offences against them by investigating power u/s 319 of the Code. It was desirable that he should have taken recourse to full-fledged discussion about the evidence in order to convince himself that actually there was a prima facie case against the Petitioners for having committed the offences; As it was not done, I consider it appropriate to quash the order of cognizance against the Petitioners under Sections 323, 325 and 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and remit the case requiring the learned Magistrate to make a thorough study of the evidence and make up his judicial mind if there existed a prima facie case against the Petitioners for those offences. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the impugned order dated 14-7-1988 is set aside. The case is remitted to the. Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhadrak, for disposal afresh according to Jaw in the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 5-3-1990. The lower Court records be sent back forthwith. Case allowed and remanded. Final Result : Allowed