Short Note : 1. The present applicant was not listed as an accused in the charge sheet submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandsaur, and, thus. was not committed to the Court of Sessions as required under section 209, Cr. P.C. The applicant was listed as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet submitted by the police Mandsaur. However, after committal of the five accused persons for the offences under sections 363 and 376, IPC, read with section 10, IPC, to the Court of Session, the Public Prosecutor submitted an application in the Court of Session, Mandsaur, on 30-12-77, to the effect that the applicant should also be joined as co-accused in the case That application has been allowed by the impugned order passed on 18-1-78 by the Session Judge, Mandsaur, in Sessions Trial No. 73/77 and the applicant has been ordered to be arrayed as co-accused in the case and is charged with an offence under section 368, IPC. 2. Held: Under section 319, Cr. P.C., it is only the Magistrate who can proceed. The words "of which such Court can take cognizance" make it clear that it is only the Magistrate, who, having jurisdiction, can proceed under this section. Where action is to be taken against a witness or any other person under Sub-section (1) on the basis of evidence, which is being recorded in an inquiry or trial, such person will become an accused in that very case and is not to be tried separately but the inquiry or trial will have to begin afresh as all witnesses examined earlier will have to be recalled and re-examined. This is the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a reported decision in P.C. Lingaiah V. State, 1977 Cri. LJ 415 which bas been followed and relied upon by the Delhi High Court in a subsequent decision reported in Abdul Majid v. State, 1978 CrL LJ 239 and it bas thus been held that Ii Court. of Session can Dot take cognizance of a case unless the same is committed to it. It is true that committal Court is no longer required to find a prima facie case before committal as its function is now non-discretionary as held by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Gandhi v Union of India, 1978 Supreme Court Cases 39. However, as stated above, sub section (4) of section 319, Cr. It is true that committal Court is no longer required to find a prima facie case before committal as its function is now non-discretionary as held by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Gandhi v Union of India, 1978 Supreme Court Cases 39. However, as stated above, sub section (4) of section 319, Cr. P.C., contemplates that where the Court proceeds against any person under Subsection (I) of section 319, Cr P. C., the proceeding in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses reheard; and as per CI. (b), subject to the provision of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. In other words, it means that such a newly added accused person can be arrayed as a co-accused only after the procedure, prescribed to be taken before the Magistrate, is followed. In such a situation, it is open to the State to proceed against the applicant by filing a supplementary challan in the Court of the Magistrate concerned who, thereafter. can commit the applicant to the Court of Session for trial, after following all the necessary procedure of law which was followed for committing the other accused in the case. 1977 Cri. LJ 415, 1978 Cri. LJ 239 and 1978 SCC 39 , relied on. Revision allowed.