ORDER : The petitioner has filed this criminal original petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking set aside of the Order, dated 07.04.2016, passed in Cr.M.P.No.828 of 2016 in S.C.No.112 of 2015, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul and to direct the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District, to array four more police officials as additional accused. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is seen that the petitioner was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor to prosecute the accused in S.C.No.112 of 2015, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul. During the course of trial, the Investigating Officer filed a criminal miscellaneous petition in Cr.M.P.No.828 of 2016, under Section 319 Cr.P.C., to include certain persons as accused in S.C.No.112 of 2015, which was dismissed by the Court below by the impugned order, dated 07.04.2016, challenging which the petitioner has filed this criminal original petition. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, an Advocate, who has been appointed as Public Prosecutor, cannot step into the shoes of the Investigating Officer and identify himself with the cause. He is expected to conduct the case in a dispassionate manner without any vengeful attitude. 5. During the trial, in a Police case, if an adverse order is passed by the Trial Court, the Public Prosecutor in charge of the case should send a copy of the order along with his opinion to the Superintendent of Police with advice to approach the higher Court. The Superintendent of Police in turn will refer the matter through the District Collector to the State Government and opinion will be obtained from the Public Prosecutor of the High Court as to whether the order of the Trial Court requires to be challenged. This procedure cannot be bypassed by the Public Prosecutor, who is in charge of the case before the Trial Court. 6. In this case, the Trial Judge, by a well considered order, has dismissed the petition filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Crl.M.P.828 of 2016 in S.C.No.112 of 2015 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarabjit Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2792 , has held that the power of Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and it should be exercised sparingly. Strangely in this case, Mr.B.Mohan, the Special Public Prosecutor in charge of the case in the Trial Court has arrogated to himself the power of representing the State of Tamil Nadu and has filed the present petition, challenging the order dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Trial Court. 7. In the result, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.