Revisional jurisdiction and Section 319 CrPC limits bar directing cognizance, charges, or adding an accused without clear evidence.

Revisional power is limited to testing the correctness, legality and propriety of the order under challenge and cannot be used to substitute the trial court's function by directing cognizance or framing charge in pending complaint proceedings. Where the complaint was already proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a proposed IPC cheating case had to be determined on the basis of evidence before the trial court, as the offence required distinct ingredients including dishonest intention. The extraordinary power under Section 319 CrPC can be invoked only on court-recorded evidence showing sufficient involvement of a person not already facing trial; in the absence of such material against Santosh Malviya, addition as an accused was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional court could direct the trial court to take cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and frame charges in the pending complaint proceedings. (ii) Whether Santosh Malviya could be added as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the material brought on record.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional court could direct the trial court to take cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and frame charges in the pending complaint proceedings.

Analysis: The revisionary court's power is confined to examining the correctness, legality and propriety of an order and does not extend to substituting its own decision on matters that remain within the trial court's domain at the stage of inquiry and trial. The proceedings were already pending on a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, while the proposed IPC prosecution involved distinct ingredients, including fraudulent or dishonest intention. The trial court was required to proceed in accordance with the procedure applicable to a complaint case and determine the matter on the basis of evidence before deciding whether a separate IPC offence was made out.

Conclusion: The revisional court was not justified in directing cognizance and framing of charge in the manner adopted, and that part of the order was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether Santosh Malviya could be added as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the material brought on record.

Analysis: Power under Section 319 is extraordinary and can be exercised only when evidence recorded in court during inquiry or trial shows sufficient involvement of a person not already facing trial. The complaint and the evidence led before the trial court did not contain a foundation for alleging cheating by Santosh Malviya, and adding him at that stage would have necessitated a de novo trial after the matter had already reached the stage of final arguments. In the absence of the requisite evidentiary basis, the extraordinary power under Section 319 could not be invoked.

Conclusion: Santosh Malviya could not be added as an accused under Section 319 on the material available.

Final Conclusion: The impugned revisional order was set aside, and the trial court's refusal to introduce the proposed IPC additions was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power cannot be used to direct cognizance or charge in substitution of the trial court's function, and a person can be added under Section 319 only on clear court-recorded evidence showing his involvement.

---