JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - The facts giving rise to this Criminal Misc. Case may be briefly stated as follows: In G.R. Case No. 12 of 1989, the S.D.J.M., Jajpur, on receipt of the charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 302, I.P.C. took cognizance against the seven accused persons named therein on 16-5-1989. As the accused persons were absent, N.B.Ws. were issued against the said seven accused persons, including the absconders, fixing 6-7-1989 as the date for their production. On 6-7-1989, the accused persons were alleged to be represented u/s 317, Code of Criminal Procedure On that date the A.P.P. filed a petition for taking cognizance against the present Petitioner also. On 29-7-1989 the learned S.D.J.M. allowing the petition of the A.P.P. issued process against the present Petitioner fixing 2 9-1989 for his appearance. Being aggrieved by that order, the present Criminal Misc. Case is filed for quashing that order. 2. The only point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Misc. Case is whether the learned S.D.J.M. had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order on 29-7-1989 summoning the present Petitioner also to figure as an accused in G.R. Case No. 12 of 1989 when in the charge-sheet filed u/s 302, I.P.C. and other sections, the Petitioner was not named as an accused. 3. On a perusal of the charge-sheet filed in the G.R. Case it is seen that as the offence u/s 302, I.P.C. is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the learned S.D.J.M. was ultimately bound to commit the case to the Court of Session u/s 209, Code of Criminal Procedure The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in view of the restrictions imposed on the powers of the committing Magistrate u/s 209, Code of Criminal Procedure the learned S.D.J.M. had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order summoning the Petitioner also as an accused in the case and in this context he very much relied on Sanjay Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others. The observations of the Supreme Court which are considered relevant and material are quoted below. Secondly, it is not open to the committal Court to launch on a process of satisfying itself that a prima facie case has been made out on the merits. The jurisdiction once vested in him under the earlier Code but has been eliminated now under the present Code. Secondly, it is not open to the committal Court to launch on a process of satisfying itself that a prima facie case has been made out on the merits. The jurisdiction once vested in him under the earlier Code but has been eliminated now under the present Code. Therefore, to hold that he can go into the merits even for a prima facie satisfaction is to frustrate the Parliament's purpose in remoulding S. 207-A(old Code) into its present non discretionary snaps. Expedition was intended by this change and this will be defeated successfully, if interpretatively we hold that a dress rehearsal of a trial before the Magistrate is in order. In our view, the narrow inspection hole through which the committing Magistrate has to look at the case limits him merely to ascertain whether the case, as disclosed by the police report, appears to the Magistrate to show an offence triable solely by the Court of Session. Assuming the facts to be correct as stated in the police report, if the offence is plainly one u/s 201 I.P.C. the Magistrate has simply to commit for trial before the Court of Session. If, by error, a wrong section of the Penal Code is quoted, he may look into that aspect. Shri Mulla submits if the Magistrate's jurisdiction were to be severely truncated like this the prosecution may stick a label mentioning a sessions offence (if we may use that expression for brevity's sake) and the accused will be denied a valuable opportunity to prove his ex facie innocence. There is no merit in this contention. If made-up facts unsupported by any material are reported by the police and a sessions offence is made to appear, it is perfectly open to the Sessions Court u/s 227, Code of Criminal Procedure to discharge the accused. This provision takes care of the-alleged grievance of the accused. On a careful reading of the above Supreme Court's decision, I find that the Supreme Court laid down the proposition that once the name of an accused finds mention in the charge-sheet, the committing Magistrate has no power to discharge him. From the list of the names of the accused persons mentioned in the charge-sheet, none of them can be omitted while the case is committed to the Court of Session. From the list of the names of the accused persons mentioned in the charge-sheet, none of them can be omitted while the case is committed to the Court of Session. There is nothing in the said decision which would suggest that on a consideration of the material before him, the committing Magistrate has no power to add to the list of the names of the accused persons mentioned in the charge-sheet. 4. Section 209, Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the commitment of case to Court of Session when the offence is triable exclusively by it. There is nothing in Section 209, Code of Criminal Procedure which would restrict the Magistrate's power of taking cognizance u/s 190, Code of Criminal Procedure As held by the Supreme Court in Raghubans Dubey Vs. State of Bihar once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, he takes cognizance of an offence and not offender; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that apart from the persons sent up by the Police, some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The summoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of an offence. In Hareram Satpathy Vs. Tikaram Agarwala and Others the relevant facts are: The Police, on completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against 6 persons on the allegation that they intentionally caused the death of Parsuram Satpathy and so far as the Respondents were concerned the Police submitted the final report saying that from the investigation carried on by it no offence appeared to have been made out against them. On the complaint filed by the Appellant, the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balangir, after going through the statements made by the Appellant and others u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure and finding a prima facie case u/s 302, I.P.C. made out against the Respondents, directed the issue of N.B.Ws. against them. The High Court after detailed and meticulous scrutiny of the afore said statements or the Appellant and others set aside the order of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate issuing process against the Respondents. Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the Appellant preferred the appeal by Special Leave before the Supreme Court. against them. The High Court after detailed and meticulous scrutiny of the afore said statements or the Appellant and others set aside the order of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate issuing process against the Respondents. Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the Appellant preferred the appeal by Special Leave before the Supreme Court. While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court made the following observations: From the foregoing it is crystal clear that u/s 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence made out in the police report or in the complaint and there is nothing like taking cognizance of the offenders at that stage. As to who actually the offenders involved in the case might have been has to be decided by the Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence. In the instant case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the police report, and after taking cognizance of the offence and perusal of the record he appears to have satisfied himself that there are prima facie grounds for issuing process against the Respondents. In so doing the Magistrate did not in our judgment exceed the power vested in him under law. In the above case, the Supreme Court held that the Magistrate did not exceed the power vested in him under law when he issued process against the Respondents even though the office submitted a final report stating that from the investigation carried, on by it no offence appeared to have been made out against them. In the above case, Sanjay Gandhi's case (supra) was referred to. 5. In Dhruba Charan Rout Vs. State of Orissa the contention that as the police submitted charge-sheet only against accused Trilochan sahu u/s 489-C, I.P.C., the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order of commitment against the Petitioner who was not charge-sheeted by the Police, was rejected by this Court. In the above decision of this Court also, Sanjay Gandhi's case (supra) was referred to. 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that to make the Petitioner, who was not charge-sheeted by the Police, a co-accused in the case the only provision available is u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention is without any substance is evident from the position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hareram Satpathy's case (supra). 6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that to make the Petitioner, who was not charge-sheeted by the Police, a co-accused in the case the only provision available is u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention is without any substance is evident from the position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hareram Satpathy's case (supra). No doubt Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure also empowers the Court to proceed against any person not shown or mentioned as an accused, if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed an offence for which he could be tried together with the main accused against whom trial is being held. But then the power u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to be exercised during the course of a trial and the proceedings against such person shall be commenced de novo and the witnesses must be re-heard. So the exercise of powers u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure during the course of the trial of a case, would invariably result in some delay in the disposal of that case: The scope of Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure is entirely different from that of Section 190 Code of Criminal Procedure The object of Section 209, Code of Criminal Procedure is to expedite the trial of sessions cases. The committing Magistrate would be frustrating that object and would be failing in his duty if even when there is material for commitment of a person who is not charge-sheeted, he does not do so on the erroneous assumption that the Sessions Court can as well proceed against him u/s 319, Code of Criminal Procedure 7. Relying on Hareram Satpathy's case (supra) of the Supreme Court and Dhruba Charan Rout's case (supra) of this Court, I hold that the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate committed no illegality in passing the impugned order summoning the Petitioner to figure as a co-accused in the case. In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed