Judgment : 1. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been arrayed as accused in S.T.C.No.31 of 1989 on the file of District and Sessions Judge for Essential Commodities Act Cases, Madurai, for offences under Section 6(2) and (3) of the Tamil Nadu Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution by Card System) Order, 1982 on a petition filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. The charge sheet was initially filed in S.T.C.No.31 of 1989 against five persons. After filing the charge sheet, the petitioners were arrayed as accused persons under Section 319, Cr.P.C. The first petitioner is a partnership firm, second and third petitioners are partners and the fourth petitioner is the cashier cum bill clerk and they are included as accused. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no legal evidence against them. The power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. could be exercised by the Court either suo motu or on an application by any one including the accused standing trial before the Court. But the discretion to act under the provision lay entirely with the court which was bound to exercise it judicially having regard to the facts of each case. The evidence under Section 319(1) for the formation of opinion for proceeding against a person not being an accused is the evidence brought before the Court during enquiry or trial. Such evidence may be oral consisting of statements of witnesses. Documents will become evidence only when they are produced in an enquiry or trial. Therefore the evidence produced at the enquiry or trial will not include statements made to police under Section 161 and the materials collected during investigation. Such materials may become evidence when proved as evidence during inquiry or trial. In the instant case, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no evidence except the statement of the Investigating Officer that too only confession of co-accused stating that he was working under Srinivasa Iyengar and none of the witnesses supported this statement during investigation. In this fact situation, when there is no independent evidence and only a confession of the co-accused, I see no ground to sustain the order implicating the petitioners herein as accused persons in the said proceedings. The proceedings as against the petitioners alone is quashed. As against the other accused persons the trial to go on expeditiously. In this fact situation, when there is no independent evidence and only a confession of the co-accused, I see no ground to sustain the order implicating the petitioners herein as accused persons in the said proceedings. The proceedings as against the petitioners alone is quashed. As against the other accused persons the trial to go on expeditiously. This petition is ordered accordingly. In view of the disposal of the main petition, petition in Crl.M.P.No. 16293 of 1990 is dismissed.