so warrant, etc. This Court in the decisions as in Prakashan v. State of Kerala , reported in 2016(4) KLT 787, while construing the scope of Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C., has held the court cannot just turn against another person whenever it comes across evidence connecting that other person also with the offence and that the power under Sec. 319 is really extra ordinary and it has to be used very sparingly and with due caution and only if compelling reasons exist for proceeding against a person against whom action has not been taken. Before a trial court seeks to take recourse to the said provision, the requisite ingredients must be fulfilled and commission of an offence by a person not facing trial must, thereafter appear to the court concerned and it cannot be ipse dixtit on the part of the court. That discretion in this behalf should be judicially exercised and it is incumbent upon the court that it should arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf and as the power is discretionary, it should only be exercised with the paramount interest of justice in mind, etc. That a judicial exercise is called for, keeping in conspectus the facts of the case, its stage and the quantum of evidence collected till then. It will be profitable to refer paragraph 7 of the decision of this Court in Prakashan's case supra, which reads as follows:
