( 1 ) THIS revision is against the order dated 12-7-1995 passed in Sessions trial No. 43/1993 by the First Additional sessions Judge, Rewa, whereby he has directed for arraigning the applicant as an accused for an offence under Section 366/109 of the Indian Penal Code by virtue of criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code" ). ( 2 ) THE husband of complainant saraswati (PW-1) was posted as Constable in the Ninth Battalion, Special Armed Force (SAF) Rewa. At the relevant time Saraswati (PW-1) was staying at Rewa with him. The applicant was commandant of that Battalion and he was staying at Gulab Club, Rewa, on 29-8-1986 Saraswarti (PW-1) lodged a written complaint with the applicant that on the previous night of 28-8-1986 at about 10. 00 p. m. Constables Albert Fasana and ashok Kumar had entered her house and committed robbery at gun point. They then dragged her to the room of applicant and pushed her inside the room. On seeing this, the applicant asked her to go back to her quarter. A copy of the complaint was also sent by Saraswati (PW-1) to nine other dignitaries. The incident was investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID ). The complaint dated 29-8-1986 of Saraswati (PW-1) was registered as first information report. During investigation, statement of saraswati (PW-1) and her son Jagendra (PW-2) were recorded on 5-4-1988. Under section 161 of the Code, these statements have been filed as Annexures E and F along with the memo of revision. Neither in the written complaint nor in these statements which were recorded after 1 year Saraswati (PW-1) and Jagendra (PW-2) did not make any allegation against the applicant that he committed any offence or he was, in any way, associated with the wrong doing of Constable albert Fasana and Ashok Kumar. After completing the investigation, Criminal Investigation Department (CID) fled a charge-sheet against Constables Albert Fasana and Ashok kumar. Constable Ashok Kumar was declared an absconder. ( 3 ) THE trial against Constable Albert fasana commenced on 11-7-1995. On this date evidence of Saraswati (PW-1) and jagendra (PW-2) was recorded. Saraswati (PW-1), for the first time i. e. after nine years from the date of incident, stated that when she was taken to the room of applicant he had closed the room and misbehaved with her. ( 3 ) THE trial against Constable Albert fasana commenced on 11-7-1995. On this date evidence of Saraswati (PW-1) and jagendra (PW-2) was recorded. Saraswati (PW-1), for the first time i. e. after nine years from the date of incident, stated that when she was taken to the room of applicant he had closed the room and misbehaved with her. She also stated that applicant assured to promote her husband and offered to give her Rs. 10,000/- but when she declined to accommodate him, he slapped her. She further stated that she escaped by opening the door of bathroom. Jagendra (PW-2) did not depose anything against the applicant. It is on the basis of the evidence of Saraswati (PW-1) recorded on 11-7-1995 the trial court, by the impugned order, has directed for arraigning the applicant as an accused on the ground that he had abetted the two constables Albert Fasana and Ashok Kumar to kidnap Saraswati (PW-1) for him for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with her. ( 4 ) IT has now been well settled by the supreme Court that the power under Section 319 of the Code must be used sparingly. In Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2000 SC 1127 : (2000 Cri LJ 1706) it has been held by the supreme Court that basic requirements for invoking the provision of Section 319 of the code is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during the trial or in the enquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt from the evidence about the involvement of another person in the offence. The Supreme court also held that unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, that Court should refrain from invoking the power under Section 319 of the code. The Supreme court also held that unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, that Court should refrain from invoking the power under Section 319 of the code. In another case, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohatgi, 1988 (1)SCC 1 : (1983 Cri LJ 159) while dealing with the powers conferred under Section 319 of the Code, the Supreme Court cautioned that this is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. ( 5 ) I have perused the charge-sheet and the evidence of Saraswati (P. W. 1 ). As already stated above, Saraswati (P. W. 1) in her written complaint dated 29-9-1986 which was not only given to the applicant but also sent by her to nine other dignitaries did not make any allegation against the applicant. On the contrary she, in the complaint, categorically stated that he did not do any wrong to her. Saraswati (P. W. 1), even in her police case diary statement recorded after 1 year which run into number of pages, made no allegation against the applicant that he participated, in any manner, in the commission of crime. She, however, for the first time after a lapse of about nine years alleged in the court by improving her statement that the applicant had misbehaved with her in his room and when the declined to co-operate with him he assured to promote her husband and even offered Rs. 10,000/- to her. This part of the evidence of Saraswati (P. W. 1)against the applicant after nine years from the date of incident, in my considered opinion, is wholly incredible. It is nothing but an after- thought improved version of saraswati (P. W. 1) which cannot be relied upon. She has not given any explanation as to why she did not make these allegations against the applicant earlier. On this evidence of Saraswati (P. W. 1) the applicant cannot be convicted for an offence under section 366/103 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been arraigned as an accused particularly when she has not even testified that she was kidnapped/abducted at the behest of applicant. On this evidence of Saraswati (P. W. 1) the applicant cannot be convicted for an offence under section 366/103 of the Indian Penal Code for which he has been arraigned as an accused particularly when she has not even testified that she was kidnapped/abducted at the behest of applicant. ( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the trial Court committed an illegality in ordering for arraigning the applicant as an accused in the case. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. ( 7 ) THE revision is allowed. The record of the trial Court be sent back immediately. The trial Court shall proceed expeditiously with the trial and decide the case on priority basis. Revision allowed. .