ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - This criminal revision is directed against the order of the learned Temporary, Civil and Sessions Judge, Etah, whereby he rejected the Applicant's revision filed against the order of a learned First Class Magistrate of that place, summoning the Applicant as an accused, in case No. 414 of P.S. Awargarh, u/s 190(1)(c) Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It appears that Sri Mehtab Singh, Principal of the Jai Kalyan Junior High School, Sikrari, Lalpur, filed a complaint u/s 406/408 IPC against Sri Turshan Pal Singh, the Manager of that School. The complaint was in respect of various items of moneys including an item of Rs. 2500/-. After necessary investigation Sri Turshan Pal Singh was charge-sheeted under those sections and sent up for trial to the court of Sri B.D. Dubey, Magistrate 1st class, Etah. One of the pleas, taken by Sri Turshan Pal Singh in his statement u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure was that he paid the said sum of Rs. 2500/- to the Applicant, who gave him a receipt for the same. Thereupon Sri Mehtab Singh moved the application, Ext. 56-Kha, praying that as, in view of the aforesaid plea, the offence in regard to the said sum was committed either by Sri Turshan Pal Singh or the Applicant--though the latter denied the receipt of that amount and has having executed a receipt for it--the disputed signature on the alleged receipt might be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison with the Applicant's admitted signature. The prayer was allowed and the expert's report prima facie went against the Applicant but no attempt was made to get it proved. However, on the basis of that report, Sri Mehtab Singh moved the application, 69-Kha, praying that Sri Mahipal Singh might also be summoned as a co-accused in the case, u/s 190(1)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate acceded to that prayer and when the revision filed against his order in the court of Sessions Judge failed the present revision was preferred to this Court. 3. On behalf of the Applicant the main contention urged in support of this revision was that as there was no legal evidence against the Applicant, the learned Magistrate was in error in summoning him as a co accused in the case against Sri Turshan Pal Singh. 3. On behalf of the Applicant the main contention urged in support of this revision was that as there was no legal evidence against the Applicant, the learned Magistrate was in error in summoning him as a co accused in the case against Sri Turshan Pal Singh. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I an satisfied that this contention is well-founded. 4. Now the powers of the criminal court, to detain a person for the purpose of being tried for an offence of which such court can take cognizance, are contained in Section 351 Code of Criminal Procedure That section, in so far as it is material for the present purposes, reads thus: 351. Detention of offenders attending Court-- (1) Any person attending a criminal court although not under arrest or upon a summons may be detained by such court for the purpose of...trial of any offence of which such court can take cognizance and which, from the evidence may appear to have been committed and may be proceeded against, as though he had been arrested or summoned. (2) When the detention takes place...after a trial has begun the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses reheard. On its plain terms, the aforesaid section me ins that a criminal court for the purpose of the trial of an offence, can detain and proceed against any person present in that court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, provided that there is some evidence to show that the said person has committed an offence of which that court can take cognizance and further that if the detention takes place after the trial has begun the proceedings in respect of that person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard. It will be noticed that the key words in this section are 'and which from the evidence may appear to have been committed'. In the present case, however there is, so far, no evidence connecting the Applicant with any offence. No doubt there is the report of the handwriting expert, but until proved, it is' not evidence on the basis of which the Applicant can be detained and proceedings taken against him. In the present case, however there is, so far, no evidence connecting the Applicant with any offence. No doubt there is the report of the handwriting expert, but until proved, it is' not evidence on the basis of which the Applicant can be detained and proceedings taken against him. On behalf of Sri Mehtab Singh, the complainant, it was urged that as the statement of Sri Turshan Pal Singh, implicating the Applicant was also evidence, the order in question was justified and reliance for this proposition was placed upon the-decision of the Supreme Court, in Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1953 SC 458. In my opinion the aforesaid decision is of no avail to Sri Mehtab Singh for all that it has laid down is that, in a trial the statement of the accused has to be treated as evidence on his behalf; and that decision has no where said that an accused's statement can also be treated as evidence against a co-accused. Hence as stated earlier this decision is of no help to Sri Mehtab Singh. There being, so far, no evidence before the learned magistrate on the basis of which he could detain the Applicant and start proceedings for any offence against him, I am satisfied that the order summoning him as a co-accused in the case pending against Trushan Pal Singh is unsustainable and has to be set aside. 5. Illegality, apart (from) the present order cannot be defended on the ground of properiety either, for the simple reason that, it would lead to the anamolous, not to say the absurd, position that the Applicant and Sri Turshan Pal (sic) would be figuring in the same trial both as prosecution witness and as accused and as their evidence as prosecution witnesses would be the same as their defence, the order would virtually be permitting them to be cross-examined in regard to their statements as accused. As the law does not permit an accused to be cross-examined and the order in question would have precisely that effect it cannot be supported on the ground of property also. As the law does not permit an accused to be cross-examined and the order in question would have precisely that effect it cannot be supported on the ground of property also. This is however not to say that the Applicant cannot be detained and proceeded against even if the report of the handwriting expert is proved and there is some evidence on the strength of which cognizance of the offence can be taken against him, but that will have to be by a separate trial in which the Applicant and Sri Turshan Pal Singh will stand not as co-accused, but as an accused and a prosecution witness respectively. 6. Thus for the reasons stated above I, set aside the impugned order and allow this revision. The revision having been allowed, the order dated 18-5-1966 staying further proceedings stands vacated and the office is directed to send down the record to the trial court at a very early date, so that the trial there may be resumed without any delay.