JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 28.6.1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Revision No. 29/84. In Criminal Case No. 71/82, for offences Under Sections 467,468 & 419, Indian Penal Code alleged against one Kewla Ram, the petitioners herein were examined as prosecution witnesses. As per the prosecution case, the allegations against the said Kewla Ram was that he created a forged document and entered into conspiracy with certain other persons and sold the immovable property purporting to be belonging to one Chhoga. The petitioners herein had put their signatures as witnesses to the said document. On the aforesaid allegations the said Kewla Ram was being prosecuted in Criminal Case No. 71/82. 2. On 15.12.1982, the learned A.P.P. incharge of the criminal case filed an application before the trial Court and requested the trial Court, Under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code to try the petitioner as alleged together with the original accused Kewla Ram. The learned Magistrate rejected the application as per order dated 27.3.1984. The learned Magistrate observed that simply because the witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, it would not be proper to arraign them also as accused. The learned Magistrate also observed that the deposition which they have given in the case may be used against them if they are arraigned as accused. According to the learned Magistrate this would not be just and fair to the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned Magistrate rejected the application. 3. It was against that order that Criminal Revision Application No. 29/84 was filed in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalore allowed the revision application as per order dated 28.6.1986, and directed the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of offences Under Sections 419, 467, 468 Read With Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners-accused and also directed to proceed against them in accordance with law. 4. The aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is challenged in this petition Under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge could not have passed the order to take cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the petitioners in exercise of powers Under section 398, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge could not have passed the order to take cognizance of the aforesaid offence against the petitioners in exercise of powers Under section 398, Criminal Procedure Code. There is much substance in the aforesaid submission. Even otherwise having regard to the ever all facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be just and proper to arraign the petitioner as accused simply because they turned hostile to the prosecution. For this reason they cannot and should not be arraigned as accused. 6. For invoking the provisions of Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is necessary that the Court should be, prima facie, satisfied that the person concerned has committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the accused. Then in that case such person may also be arraigned as accused and the case may proceed against him also. Therefore, the pre-condition to exercise of powers Under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure code is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence that such person has committed an offence. It may be noted that as held by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67 , this power is to be exercised extraordinarily and it is required to be used sparingly, and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the person other than the accused. In the instant case there does not appear to exist the compelling reasons. No such compelling reasons are disclosed by the learned Sessions Judge for taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order and judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 28.6.1986 passed in Cr. Revision No. 29/84 is quashed and set aside.The petition is allowed accordingly.Petition Allowed. *******