R. M. LAL, J, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants son David has been charge sheeted for offences punishable under sections 376 and 342 of the Penal Code in Crime No. 362/88 and is facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1989. It appears that after framing the charge against the accused David, an application was moved by the prosecution U/s 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for proceedings against this applicant Smt. Sislius Stephens also, who is mother of accused David, as according to the prosecution she was also found guilty of offences, under sections 376/109, 120-b and 342/ 109 because when the alleged offence of rape was being committed by the accused David, this applicant closed the door from outside and in this way she become a party to the offence, and as such, she is also liable to be prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. ( 2 ) THIS fact is not disputed that yet the prosecution has not examined any witness. ( 3 ) SECTION3l9 Cr. P. C. reads as under: Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offences:1. 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. 2. Where such person is not attending the Court he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require for the purpose aforesaid. 3. Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. ( 4 ) WHERE the court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then a) the proceedings, in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard; b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. This provision is emphatic which postulates that where 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. 4. In the present case, as observed above, yet no prosecution witnesses have been examined and the challan papers and the statements recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C. cannot be treated as evidence until evidence is recorded in Court and the prosecution documents are proved before the Court and marked as exhibits. Hence the application made by the prosecution is premature and on this ground alone the impugned order deserves to be quashed. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY the revision is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. Revision allowed. .