N. N. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) -BOTH these revisions are directed against order dated 27. 11. 1984 recorded by Shri R. S. Tripathi, learned Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions -Trial No. 146 of 1983. State v. Shyam Behari and others. ( 2 ) IT appears that revisionists along with 9 others were accused in the First Information Report lodged on 26. 9. 1982 at about 10. 15 P. M. at Police Station Bindki, district Fatehpur by Shri Surya Prasad (P. W. 1) a practising Advocate. Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit filed by informant shows that while he was sitting in his office, at about 9. 00 P. M. , the accused armed with lethal weapons, who were well known to the informant from before, stormed into his office on account of deep seated enmity to exterminate him and his family members; informant took cover when the shot was fired at him by Shyam Behari alias Munni his mother Smt. Girja Devi and Satendra, his cousin, ran inside the room to save him when Shyam Behari shot dead his mother and Ram Behari Revisionist shot at Satendra, his cousin. Rajan accused fired shot at Girdhar Prasad, his maternal uncle who sustained dangerous injuries. Shri Girdhar Prasad succumbed to the injuries subsequently as pointed out at the time of arguments. he occurrence was witnessed by the residents of the locality. Except the revisionists, all the other accused wele sent up; After recording examination-in-chief of P. W. 1 informant the accused revisionists were summoned on the application by learned Advocate for prosecution, impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. ( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate, for revisionists pointed out that the revisionists were not sent up by police and investigation, against them was dropped. The statements of Shri Jagdish Narain Sharma, M. L. A. and one I. A. S. Officer and others, recorded at the stage of investigation, were over-looked by the learned Sessions Judge although this evidence or alibi outweighed the evidence of prosecution. The statement of P. W. 1, who, has not been cross-examined, was not sufficient to counter balance the material collected by investigator which impelled him to drop the proceedings against the revisionists. There was no quantum of evidence prescribed to justify the summoning of an accused under section 319 of the code of criminal procedure code. The statement of P. W. 1, who, has not been cross-examined, was not sufficient to counter balance the material collected by investigator which impelled him to drop the proceedings against the revisionists. There was no quantum of evidence prescribed to justify the summoning of an accused under section 319 of the code of criminal procedure code. There was no prima facie case against the revisionists to connect them with the crime; learned Sessions, Judge did not apply his judicial mind for considering whether or not there was ground for presuming the commission of crime by the revisionists. In this connection reliance was placed upon century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V. The state of Maharashtra1 which relates to an order of the court at the stage of the framing the charges. It was observed: It can not be said that the court at the stage of framing the charges has not apply its judicial mind for considering whether or not there is, it ground for presuming the: commission, of the offence by the, accused. Therefore framing the charges does substantially affect the, persons liberty and it can not be said that he court must automatically frame the charge merely because the prosecuting authorities relying on the documents reffered to an section 173 consider it proper to institute the case. The responsibility of framing the charges is that of the court and it has to judicially consider the question of doing so. Without fully adverting to the material on the record it must not blindly adopt the decision of the prosecution. Held that the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution for the offence charged was groundless. Order of discharge made by him was eminently just and fair order. The High Court therefore was in error in reversing that order. Under such circumstances, there was no sufficient ground for proceeding atleast against revisionists. I have carefully considered all these contentions. ( 4 ) SECTION 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure reads as below: 319 (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid ( 5 ) THUS, a perusal of, this provision shows that a discretionary power has been, conferred on the Sessions Judge to summon any person as an accused provided he is satisfied that the evidence or the circumstances of the case disclose that a person, not brought up for trial should be, arraigned as an accused and must be made to face the trial. ( 6 ) IT is the satisfaction of the Magistrate and not of this Court which is relevant in this connection. It shall, be highly improper for this Court to fetter the discretion of the Magistrate by laying dawn a rule about the quantum of evidence when he should feel satisfied to summon any person during the enquiry or trial under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 7 ) THE interference by a revisional court with such an order is justified only on the following grounds: (i) that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to issue processes against the revisionists; (ii) there was a fundamental legal defect going to the root of the proceedings; (iii) there was absolutely no case against the revisionists on the version laid in evidence, oral or documentary adduced before the court; (iv) that all the essential ingredients of the offence for which they have been summoned were not laid in F. I. R. or did not appear in evidence; (v) there was anything capricious or arbitrary in the exercise of such discretion by Sessions Judge, or (vi) there has been an abuse of the process of the court. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, applying the aforesaid principles, I find that it has not been shown that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to issue the processes against the revisionists; no legal fundamental defect going to the root of the matter was shown. The statement of P. W. 1 is consistent with the version given in the F. I. R. and is corroborated by material on record, which at its face value does show that the revisionists were concerned in the commission of the said offence. ( 9 ) UNLESS any of the aforesaid grounds are made out, it is not possible to quash such orders. ( 9 ) UNLESS any of the aforesaid grounds are made out, it is not possible to quash such orders. If, eventually, the learned Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion that no case is made out against the revisionists, he may discharge or acquit them. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly referred to Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab2 and Shamshad Khan v State of U. P. 3 ( 10 ) THE interrogation by investigator cannot constitute evidence. Evidence means the evidence recorded during the course of inquiry or trial and not at the stage of investigation. So the aforesaid evidence of alibi cannot be looked into at this stage. ( 11 ) THE prosecution was not bound to negate such evidence of alibi at this stage. Conviction, on evidence of a single witness, is sustainable even in murder cases (Vadjvelu Thevar v. State of Madras4. ( 12 ) IT is for the revisionists to prove their alibi at the proper stage. The burden to prove alibi lies on them vide Satya Vir v. State5 and State of Haryana v. Sher Singh and others6. So the impugned order is unassailable. Both the revisions are dismissed. The stay orders dated 7. 12. 1984. and 12. 12. 1984 are vacated herewith. Revisions dismissed. .