This criminal revision is against the order dated 12.8.87 passed by Shri R.N. Chakraborty, Sessions Judge, Silchar, summoning the petitioners under sections 302/149 IPC during the trial of the Sessions Case No. 100/86. 2. On 16.11.84 an FIR was made by one Mustt Maburunnessa stating that at 11 AM while her husband Jamiruddin was reaping ripe paddy along with Shar Cropper, Atiur Rahman, Nenamani, Majibur Rahman, Fakrul and 2/3 others took him to their house, tied there and severely assaulted him. On this FIR the Silchar Police Station registered Case No.95/84 under sections 342/326/34 IPC. Subsequently, Jamiruddin died and, therefore, the police added section 302 IPC to the case. In the investigation police recorded the statement of 13 witnesses and submitted charge sheet under sections 147/ 342/302 IPC against the four persons, whose names were disclosed as accused in the FIR, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Silchar. The petitioners were not sent up in the charge sheet. The informant, therefore, filed an application on 16.7.86 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silchar to include the petitioners as accused before committing the case to Sessions Court. It was stated in the application that the statements made by witnesses before the police disclosed that the petitioners were also involved in the crime. The Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded this application to Sessions Judge, Silchar for consideration at the time of inquiry for taking cognizance of the case. 3. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the four accused persons who were sent up in the charge sheet. At that time he omitted to consider the informant's application. On 12.8.87, the learned Sessions Judge examined 4(four) of the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW 1 Mabur unnessa (informant), wife of the deceased, PW 2 Subenaj Begum, daughter of the deceased, PW 3 Fareekuddin, son of the deceased and PW 4 Suretonnessa, mother of the deceased. The deposition of the witnesses again disclosed that the petitioners participated in the crime. On this date, the prosecution moved the application dated 16.7.87 to include the petitioners as accused. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution witnesses had named the petitioners accused in their statements under section 161 CrPC before the police and they have again named these persons in their evidence at the trial. On this date, the prosecution moved the application dated 16.7.87 to include the petitioners as accused. The learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution witnesses had named the petitioners accused in their statements under section 161 CrPC before the police and they have again named these persons in their evidence at the trial. Being satisfied that there are materials against the petitioners, he by his order dated 12.8.87 summoned the petitioners for trial together with the accused against whom the charges were framed. Hence', this revision by these 3 ( three ) petitioners. 4. Mr. CR De, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Sessions Judge could not summon the petitioners as they were not sent up as accused by the police in the charge sheet. I do not think that the contention is correct. Section 319 of the Cr PC provides as follows: 319. Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - (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. *** *** *** (4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) then- (a) the proceeding in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard; (b) subject to the provisions of clause (e), 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 Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 339 it was held: "A plain reading of section 319 (1), which occurs in Chapter XXIV dealing with general provisions as to inquiries and trials, clearly shows that it applies to all the Courts including Sessions Court and, as such, a Sessions Court will have the power to add any person, not being the accused before it, but against whom there appears during trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the other accused without their being a committal order against such person." Earlier in Saifor vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 Calcutta 133, it was held : "When a Magistrate takes conizance u/s 190 (1) (b) on a police report, he takes cognizance of the offence and not merely of the particular persons named in the charge sheet, and therefore the Magistrate is entitled to summon additional accused against whom he considers that there was good evidence after perusal of the statements recorded by police under section 161 and the other document referred to in section 173, even without examination of witnesses in Court." 5. In view of the above two decisions, it is now clear that the word 'evidence' in section 319 means : (1) the statements recorded by police under section 161 and (2) the depositions of witness at the trial. Therefore, a Magistrate or Sessions Judge can summon a person, not sent up by police, at 2 stages, if such person, is found to be involved in the crime. In the first place, he can summon such person at the stage of inquiry, i. e. before framing charge against the persons who are accused. This he can do without examining any witness. Secondly, he can summon such person at the stage of the trial if deposition of PWs disclose that such person is also involved in the crime. 6. In the first place, he can summon such person at the stage of inquiry, i. e. before framing charge against the persons who are accused. This he can do without examining any witness. Secondly, he can summon such person at the stage of the trial if deposition of PWs disclose that such person is also involved in the crime. 6. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge discovered at the stage of trial that the 4 PWs implicated the petitioners not only at the trial but they had implicated them also earlier when they made the statement before police daring investigation. The impugned order appears to be correct and no exception can be taken to it. As such, the revision is rejected. 7. It is stated by Mr. CR De that a cross case against the party of the informant was filed by the party of accused-petitioners and that case is pending before the same Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge is, there­fore, directed to try both the cases together. Send back the case records immediately.