JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. The petitioner Ashok Kumar Behera who is a Stipendiary Engineer has filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the impugned order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundargarh in G.R. Case No.201 of 2000 in allowing the application under section 319 of Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution and thereby adding the petitioner as an accused in the case and directing for issuance of summons against him. The said case arises out of Lephripada P.S. Case No.30 of 2000 in which charge sheet has been submitted under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code against one Durga Charan Choudhury. 2. On 18.04.2000 on the basis of the First Information Report submitted by Gayaprasad Satpathy, Additional Block Development Officer, Lephripada Block before the Officer in charge, Lephripada Police Station, Lephripada P.S. Case No. 30 of 2000 was registered under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code wherein it is alleged that as per the special audit report no. 14/1999- 2000 communicated in Government letter no.14840 dated 17.11.1999, a sum of Rs.4,70,397/- was outstanding as advance against accused Durga Charan Choudhury, Ex-Fishery Extension Officer of Lephripada Block. As per instruction of Additional Secretary to Government P.R. Department communicated in letter no.56/P.R. dated 03.01.2000, accused Shri D.C. Choudhury was issued with one month’s notice to recoup the outstanding advance vide office letter no.207 dated 19.01.2000 but he failed to recoup the outstanding advance to the tune of Rs.4,70,397/-. The Officer in charge himself took up investigation of the case and on completion of investigation, finding prima facie case against accused Durga Charan Choudhury under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code submitted charge sheet on 03.01.2006. 3. During course of trial of accused Durga Charan Choudhury before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sundargarh, the prosecution examined six witnesses and then an application under section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner and other co-accused persons under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code which was allowed vide impugned order dated 10.12.2007. Out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 Anantaram Nayak has stated about the seizure of a file by police from his office under seizure list Ext.1 which he received in zima by executing zimanama Ext.2. Out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 Anantaram Nayak has stated about the seizure of a file by police from his office under seizure list Ext.1 which he received in zima by executing zimanama Ext.2. He further stated about the seizure of the report of Additional Project Director and some letters totaling 41 pages under seizure list Ext.3. P.W.2 Jenamani Mohanadia who was the gramarakhi of Lephripada Police Station stated about the seizure of some papers under seizure list Ext.4. P.W.3 Surendra Kumar Patel was the cashier of Lephripada Block who stated about the seizure of the cash books of the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 from the Block Office as per seizure list Ext.5 which were given in his zima as per zimanama Ext.6. P.W.4 Bijaya Kumar Pradhan was the Senior Clerk of Lephripada Block who stated about the seizure of special audit report from the Head Clerk under seizure list Ext.7 and also seizure of some cash books from the Block Office under seizure list Ext.5 so also seizure of the report of Addl. Project Director, DRDA under seizure list Ext.3 and three letters under seizure list Ext.1. P.W.5 Pradeep Patel was the Senior Clerk attached to Lephripada Block who is a witness to the seizure of special audit report under seizure list Ext.7, cash books from the Block Office under seizure list Ext.5 and report of Addl. Project Director, DRDA under seizure list Ext.3. P.W.6 Madhusudan Padhi conducted audit of the accounts section of the office of BDO, Lephripada as auditor, Panchayatraj Department, Odisha, Secretariat, Bhubaneswar and he proved his special audit report under Ext.8. 4. After examination of the aforesaid six witnesses, an application under section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution to implead the petitioner and others as accused mainly relying upon the evidence of P.W.6 and the special audit report (Ext.8) which has been proved by P.W.6. P.W.6 has stated that audit was confined to the outstanding advance against accused Durga Charan Choudhury and it was found to be Rs.4,70,397/-. He further stated that one Chiru Bhoi, B.D.O. had given irregular and excess advance of Rs.8,89,000/- and the B.D.O., J.E. K.P. Choudhury, the petitioner who was the Stipendiary Engineer and Asst. P.D. (T) Arjun Patra had made fictitious measurement and check measurement and tried to make adjustment but on complaints, Addl. He further stated that one Chiru Bhoi, B.D.O. had given irregular and excess advance of Rs.8,89,000/- and the B.D.O., J.E. K.P. Choudhury, the petitioner who was the Stipendiary Engineer and Asst. P.D. (T) Arjun Patra had made fictitious measurement and check measurement and tried to make adjustment but on complaints, Addl. P.D. (Tech.), Sundargarh made re-check measurement of the works executed by accused Durga Charan Choudhury and found that fictitious measurement was made for adjustment. It is further stated by P.W.6 that the first measurement was made for Rs.1,04,000/- whereas the re-check measurement revealed that the work done was for Rs.55,000/- for which advance was not actually shown. He further stated that in the report, he has reflected joint liability. The learned counsel for the accused Durga Ch. Choudhury in the Trial Court supported the petition filed by the prosecution. The learned Trial Court relying upon the audit report and the evidence of P.W.6 held that audit report adduced as Ext.8 is not only predominant and prima facie substantiates the charge but crucial to the logical end of the trial. While making indictment, PDDO No.1376 dated 10.02.1999 referred to in the exhibit ascribed the alleged misappropriation to improper recheck measurement and huge advance payment. P.W.6 stated about irregular advances made by the Ex-BDO and the audit report indicted others for their involvement in the re-check measurement and consequential non-adjustment of advance payments. The learned Trial Court further held that the persons noted in the petition appeared to be involved in the commission of the offence and accordingly allowed the petition filed by the prosecution and issued summons against the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.K. Paikaray challenging the impugned order contended that the learned Trial Court erred in invoking its power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. which is an extraordinary one conferred on the Court to be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. He further contended that the audit report prepared by P.W.6 is self-contradictory and it does not reasonably lead to the conviction of the petitioner and moreover P.W.6 has not stated anything against the petitioner before the Investigating Officer and the audit is confined to accused D.C. Choudhury and accordingly sanction was accorded against him for prosecution by the District Magistrate, Sundargarh. He further contended that no new material has come during trial to entangle the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, invoking power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court should quash the impugned order. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Deepak Kumar on the other hand contended that in the audit report, it is specifically mentioned that in pre-planned attempt to misappropriate the Government money, the petitioner in connivance with other officials committed number of irregularities. The petitioner helped the B.D.O. in the preparation of fictitious bills without actual work being done and the measurement certificate issued by the petitioner was ultimately passed by Arjun Patra, Ex Project Director (Technical), D.R.D.A, Sundargarh. On the recommendation of the petitioner, an advance amount of Rs.2,30,000/- was paid to accused D.C. Choudhury for the work for which no check measurement was made till completion of the work. It is further contended that the audit report indicates that at three instances, advances were granted on the recommendation of the petitioner without any check measurement and therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Court in invoking the power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. 6. Law is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave miscarriage of justice would be done, if the inherent power is not exercised. Law is also well settled that the power of summoning an additional accused under section 319 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised at any stage of the case but it should be used very sparingly only when compelling reasons exist as it is an extraordinary one. Unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case as against the newly brought accused ending in conviction of the concerned offence, the Court should not invoke such power. In case of Hardeep Singh -Vrs.-State of Punjab reported (2014) 57 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 455, a five Judge Bench framed the following questions to be answered by the Bench (i) What is the stage at which power under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised? In case of Hardeep Singh -Vrs.-State of Punjab reported (2014) 57 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 455, a five Judge Bench framed the following questions to be answered by the Bench (i) What is the stage at which power under section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised? (ii) Whether the word “evidence” used in section 319(1) Cr.P.C. could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the Court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned? (iii) Whether the word “evidence” used in section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial? (iv) What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under section 319(1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the Court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted? (v) Does the power under section 319 Cr.P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged? The answers were given as follows:- Question Nos. (i) & (iii) A. In Dharam Pal’s case reported in (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 9, the Constitution Bench has already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence can be taken against a person not named as an accused but against whom materials are available from the papers filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and the Sessions Judge need not wait till ‘evidence’ under section 319 Cr.P.C. becomes available for summoning an additional accused. Section 319 Cr.P.C., significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Section 319 Cr.P.C., significantly, uses two expressions that have to be taken note of i.e. (1) Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under sections 200, 201, 202 Cr.P.C.; and under section 398 Cr.P.C. are species of the inquiry contemplated by section 319 Cr.P.C. Materials coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the Court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C., and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge sheet. In view of the above position, the word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial. Question No. (ii) A. Considering the fact that under section 319 Cr.P.C., a person against whom material is disclosed is only summoned to face the trial and in such an event under section 319(4) Cr.P.C. the proceeding against such person is to commence from the stage of taking of cognizance, the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination. Question No. (iv) A. Though under section 319(4)(b) Cr.P.C. the accused subsequently impleaded is to be treated as if he had been an accused when the Court initially took cognizance of the offence, the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge. The difference in the degree of satisfaction for summoning the original accused and a subsequent accused is on account of the fact that the trial may have already commenced against the original accused and it is in the course of such trial that materials are disclosed against the newly summoned accused. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial – therefore, the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Fresh summoning of an accused will result in delay of the trial – therefore, the degree of satisfaction for summoning the accused (original and subsequent) has to be different. Question No. (v) A. A Person not named in the F.I.R. or a person though named in the F.I.R. but has not been charge sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial. However, in so far as an accused who has been discharged is concerned, the requirement of sections 300 and 398 Cr.P.C. has to be complied with before he can be summoned afresh. In case of Ramakanta Behera @ Sahu & others -Vrs.-State of Orissa reported in (2009) 42 Orissa Criminal Reports 645, it has been held as follows:- “11. Provision under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the judicial pronouncements referred to above make it evident that the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to array any person not being the accused before it to face the trial along with other accused persons, if the Court is satisfied, in course of enquiry or trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, that such person should face trial and that the Trial Court may resort to the provision of section 319 of the Cr.P.C. only on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and not on the basis of the materials available in the charge sheet or the case diary. As recourse to section 319 of the Cr.P.C. postulates de novo trial, the extraordinary power conferred there under should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist. Also the power should be exercised at the earliest when the evidence necessitating the exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. appears. An order under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is not required to be mechanically passed merely on the ground that some evidence had come on record implicating the person sought to be added as an accused. Also unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case against newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, it should refrain from exercising the jurisdiction. 12. Also unless the Court is hopeful that there is reasonable prospect of the case against newly brought accused ending in conviction of the offence concerned, it should refrain from exercising the jurisdiction. 12. What the provision under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. contemplates and what has been stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in the decisions relied upon on behalf of the informant is that power under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised by a Court in course of trial if it appears from the ‘evidence’ before it that any offence has been committed by person or persons not facing trial as accused along with the accused facing trial. There has to be some ‘evidence’ adduced before the Court to indicate complicity of person who is not facing trial. There is no scope to array a person as accused in a trial unless incriminating circumstance appears against him in the evidence. That does not mean that whenever there is evidence implicating a person as accused, the Court shall exercise jurisdiction under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. without considering other materials available on record. xx xxxx xxxx 17. Thus, it is clear that one of the foremost considerations for exercise of the jurisdiction under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. is existence of reasonable prospect of conviction of the newly arrayed accused persons. The power should not be exercised mechanically on the ground that some evidence has come on record against the person who is not facing trial. The jurisdiction should be used very sparingly only if compelling reasons exists. The power should not be exercised mechanically on the ground that some evidence has come on record against the person who is not facing trial. The jurisdiction should be used very sparingly only if compelling reasons exists. The Court has to consider the conspectus of the case before exercising of jurisdiction under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. While evidence appearing in course of trial implicating the persons who are not facing trial is the basis for exercise of jurisdiction under section 319 of the Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into account other materials on record including the materials placed by the investigating agency in order to assess the prospect of conviction and desirability of exercise of the judicial discretion under section 319 of the Cr.P.C. There is no basis to sustain the contention that the Trial Court is precluded from taking into account materials collected in course of investigation for considering the desirability for exercise of the extraordinary discretion.” In case of Hardei -Vrs.-State of Utter Pradesh reported in (2016) 64 Orissa Criminal Reports (SC) 57, it has been held as follows:- “9. It is well accepted in criminal jurisprudence that F.I.R. may not contain all the details of the occurrence or even the names of all the accused. It is not expected to be an encyclopedia even of facts already known. There are varieties of crimes and by their very nature, details of some crimes can be unfolded only by a detailed and expert investigation. This is more true in crimes involving conspiracy, economic offences or cases not founded on eye witness accounts. The fact that Police choose not to send up a suspect to face trial does not affect power of the Trial Court under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon such a person on account of evidence recorded during trial”. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and on perusal of the audit report which has been proved by the prosecution, it reveals that under the heading of irregular sanction of advances, it is mentioned that huge advances were granted by Sri Chihira Bhoi, Ex-Block Development Officer. Sri D.C. Choudhury, Ex-F.E.O., was granted huge advances for execution of different developmental works and in course of such execution of works, irregularities were committed in a pre-planned manner in order to misappropriate Government money by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. Sri D.C. Choudhury, Ex-F.E.O., was granted huge advances for execution of different developmental works and in course of such execution of works, irregularities were committed in a pre-planned manner in order to misappropriate Government money by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. It is further mentioned that all the J.Es and Stipendiary Engineer (petitioner) prepared fictitious bills without actual work and Ex-Asst. P.D. (Tech.), DRDA, Sundargarh indulged himself in passing check measurement certificates. Huge payment of advance as well as re-check measurement of works were the reasons for non-adjustment of advances. The auditors suggested for penal action or administrative action to be initiated against the petitioner, accused Durga Charan Choudhury and others. The audit report indicates irregularities are under three headings i.e., (i) irregular sanction of advances, (ii) outstanding advances against Sri D.C. Choudhury, Ex-F.E.O. and (iii) excess adjustment of advance and loss of Government money. The misappropriation of Government money has been done in connection with three Project works executed under Lephripada Block i.e., Ghat cutting from Luhakami to Ushakothi under E.A.S. 96-97, C.D. on Gundiadih-Bhurisidand with metalling under E.A.S. 96-97 and Improvement of Bursidand to Sunajore Mahasimna under E.A.S. 96-97 and improvement of Nuadihi-Sahajbahal Road under E.A.S. 96-97 as per the letter dated 29.03.1998 of the Addl. P.D. (Tech.), D.R.D.A., Sundargarh addressed to the Project Director, D.R.D.A., Sundargarh which has been seized in the case in which the specific role played by the petitioner in the alleged misappropriation of Government money has been mentioned. Therefore, not only the documentary evidence like audit report, letter dated Addl. P.D. (Tech.) D.R.D.A., Sundargarh but also the evidence of P.W.6 substantiates the allegations against the petitioner. The materials collected during course of investigation also corroborate the evidence of P.W.6 recorded during the trial. Therefore in my humble view, there were sufficient grounds before the learned Trial Court for proceeding against the petitioner in exercise of power under section 319 of Cr.P.C. and to add the petitioner as an accused to come to a logical end in the trial. In the result, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same invoking inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, CRLMC application being devoid of merits stands dismissed.