Judgment : 1. The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Nagercoil in CMP. No 425/2004 in C.C. NO 255/2002 dated 17.11.2004, 2. On the basis of the complaint given by the Sub Registrar, Public Distribution System, Moonchirai the respondent/complainant had filed the first information report against the Management, Fair Price Shop, James town, Chettikulam and one C. Vasanthem for the offence punichable under Sections 14(1) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1992, 6(2), 6(3) TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982, Clause 4(1) TNSC (RDCS) order (1982), 7(i)(A)(ii) of Act 1955. 3. The prosecution case is that one Mrs. Vasantham was working as a sales women in Thovalai Sangam from 17.2.1997 to 22.7.1998. While distributing rice, kerosene and sugar through ration card, it was found that a sum of Rs. 1814.15 and Rs.13,677/- were not credited in the accounts of the society. On the basis of the first information report, charge sheet was filed on 22.7.2001. Then a memo was filed by the Inspector of Police to implicate the petitioner herein as an accused. On the basis of the memo filed by the prosecution, the petitioner was added as an accused in the case. Challenging the same he filed a discharge petition in CMP. No.425 of 2004 and the same was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved over the dismissal order, the present revision has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that originally the petitioner was shown as a witness and he was added as an accused on the basis of the memo filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor and no evidence has been adduced against the petitioner herein. He further submits that the mandatory provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C., was violated. He relied upon a judgment reported in K. Srinivasan Iyengar & Sons and three Others v. State by Inspector, Civil Supplies (1996) 1 CTC 433 which reads as follows: “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. 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 proceedigns 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 should be produced in an enquiry or trial.” 6. He relied upon another judgment in Mrs. Machal v. State of Tamilnadu 1997 Crl LJ 2011 which reads as follows: “It is clear that Section 319 Cr.P.C., is an enabling provision, can be invoked only if the evidence surfaces in the course of inquiry or trial disclosing the complicity of a person or persons other than person or persons already arrayed as accused before Court…. Now as pointed about earlier Section 319 Cr.P.C. deals with only one situation viz., the complicity coming to light from the evidence taken and recorded in the course of an inquiry or trial. Once the purport of Section 319 Cr.P.C. is so understood it is obvious that the scope of the operation or the area of its play would also be limited to where after cognizance the involvement of any person or persons in the commissioner of the crime comes to light in the course of evidence recorded at the inquiry or trial.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the scope of Section 319 Cr.P.C., is limited, in that, it is an enabling provision which can be invoked only if evidence surfaces in the course of an enquiry or trial disclosing the complicity of a person or persons other than the person of persons already arraigned before the Court. In this case, the accused was implicated as an accused on the basis of the memo filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor. There is no evidence to connect the accused with the crime. So the order passed by the trial Court is not correct and the same is not maintainable. 8. In the light of the above said decisions, I am of the considered view that there is no evidence or record to add the petitioner as an accused in the case and the order or the trial Court is not correct. So the order passed by the trial Court is not correct and the same is not maintainable. 8. In the light of the above said decisions, I am of the considered view that there is no evidence or record to add the petitioner as an accused in the case and the order or the trial Court is not correct. Hence I think it is just an proper to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate. 9. In the result, the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Nagercoil made in CMP. No. 425.2004 in C.C.No. 256/2002 dated 17.11.2004 stands set asides and this criminal revision is allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. is closed.