A. PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application questioning correctness as of order dated 9. 10. 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balangir, holding that the petition dated 6. 9. 1989 filed by petitioner No. 1 styled as one under section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Code) to frame charge against some persons, whose names did not appear in charge-sheet was without merit. The said persons are arrayed as opposite party Nos. 2 to 11 in this application. In this application it was stated that in addition to three persons who had been arraigned as accused, role of some others clearly established them to be equally responsible as would be evident from statements of many who were examined by the police during investigation. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the motion holding that the stage for exercising power under section 319 of the Code had not come. He, however, observed that if during trial circumstances come to fore to warrant proceeding against others, the same shall be done at the appropriate stage. Nevertheless he referred to statements of persons recorded by the Investigating Officer to conclude that prima facie there was no material to proceed against any other persons.

( 2 ) MR. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the petition was labeled under section 319 of the Code, in fact the prayer was to frame charge against opp. party Nos. 2 to 11 in terms of section 228 of the Code. Allegations are also levelled against the prosecuting lawyer to the effect that for reason best known to him, there was opposition to the motion made by the petitioner No. 1. It is his case that in the greater interest of justice, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have looked at the level but should have gone into the substance of the petition.

( 3 ) MR. H. S. Misra, learned counsel appearing for some of the opposite parties, submits that the materials on record clearly show the fallacy in the stand of petitioner No. 1 about any role having been played by opposite party Nos. 2 to 11 in the alleged incident. He further raises an objection as to the maintainability of the application at the behest of petitioner No. 2, who was not a copetitioner with petitioner No. 1, in the application filed on 6. 9. 1989.

( 4 ) SECTION 319 of the Code aims at bringing into trial all those who are responsible for a crime. During trial if it appears from the evidence that any person not being accused has committed any offence for which he or she can be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. Section 319 sets out powers of a Court to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as accused, if it appears from evidence that such person has committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the main accused against whom an enquiry or trial is being held. It authorises the Court to issue a warrant or summons against such person if he is not attending the Court; and, if he is so attending, to detain such person for the purpose of inquiring into or trial of the offence which he appears to have committed. The proceedings against such person shall be commenced de novo and witnesses are to be re-heard. For exercising power under section 319, it is sufficient if only prima facie case is made out. The power may be used suo motu or on an application by the prosecution or the accused. Power under section 319 is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court to do total justice. It should be used with caution and only if compelling reasons exist for proceeding against a person against whom action has not been taken Court is not required to evaluate or appraise evidence as it would amount to pre-juding the issue. Evidence as used in section 319 means evidence recorded during course of inquiry or trial. Statements recorded by police, and interrogation by investiga