JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 17-11-92, whereby the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Behror (Alwar) has framed the charges. 2. An FIR was lodged on 28-8-91 by non petitioner No.2 at Police Station Mandhan, District Alwar regarding offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341 & 302 IPC implicating the nine accused persons including petitioner. After investigation, the police has filed challan against eight persons and no challan was filed against the petitioner. The case was committed to the trial Court on 9-2- 92 and charges were also framed against eight persons on 18-8-92. 3. Before framing of charges against persons by the trial court, the non petitioner No.2 files a complaint in the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Behror on 9-1-92. That has been dismissed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 24-7-92. Thereafter, one more application was moved on 18-8-92, and on that application the cognizance was taken against the petitioner under section 319 Cr.P.C. Against that order of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, the petitioner preferred misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, and this Court order dated 22-10-92 has observed that whether there is a prima facie case or not, that will be considered at the stage of framing of charges against the petitioner. Now, the charges have been framed vide order dated 17-11-92 by the trial Court and petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 17-11-92 whereby the charges against the petitioner Noon Chand have been framed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Santosh Kaushik, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.R. Yadav and learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Anil Jain. The facts stated above are not in dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kaushik submitted that when no challan has been filed by the police against petitioner Noon Chand, no cognizance can be taken against him under section 319 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kishun Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, Cr.L.R. (SC) 1993 page 193 . which squarely covers the dispute in this case. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.R. Yadav submitted that even when no witness has been examined during trial, the court is competent to take cognizance under section 193 Cr.P.C. on the basis of material on record. v. State of Bihar, Cr.L.R. (SC) 1993 page 193 . which squarely covers the dispute in this case. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.R. Yadav submitted that even when no witness has been examined during trial, the court is competent to take cognizance under section 193 Cr.P.C. on the basis of material on record. He further submitted that assuming the issue has been covered by the decision of their Lordships of the Apex Court, that decision came into force on 11-1-93 while the cognizance has been taken by the trial court on 3-10-92 in case of petitioner, i.e., prior to the decision of Apex Court and on that relevant date, the decision of Full Bench of this Court supports the view that cognizance can be taken by the trial Court without examination of any witness during trial and, therefore, it can not be said that there was any mistake apparent in the order dated 3-10-92 which can be reviewed after the decision of their Lordships in case of Kishun Singh (supra). For that, he placed reliance on the decision of Gauhati High Court in case of Controller of Estate Duty v. Murarilal Sovasaria, 1989 ITR 380 . 6. The challan in this case has been filed against eight co- accused persons on 26-11-91, but no challan was filed against the petitioner. Thereafter, an application has been moved by non petitioner No.2 and on the basis of that application, cognizance has been taken by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 3-10-92. That order has been challenged by way of misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court, and this Court has not interfered in the order of trial court dated 3-10-92 taking cognizance against the petitioner. Therefore, there is no question of disturbing that order at this stage, specially even in this petition also, the petitioner has challenged only the impugned order dated 17-11-92 whereby the charges are framed against the petitioner. Therefore, neither the order dated 3-10- 92 is in challenge in this petition nor it can be interfered with as the petition of the petitioner challenging the order of cognizance dated 3-10-92 has been dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the decision of their Lordships in case of Kishun Singh (supra), no cognizance can be taken unless some material has been brought on record during trial. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the decision of their Lordships in case of Kishun Singh (supra), no cognizance can be taken unless some material has been brought on record during trial. As stated above, there is no scope of interfering in the order taking cognizance dated 3-10-92, but, even on merits, the impugned order taking cognizance was passed on 3-10-92, and on that day, there was no decision of the Apex Court contrary to the decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Dalip Singh Ors. v. State RLR 1988 (2) 207 . 8. In case of Dalip Singh (supra), the Full Bench of this Court has considered this aspect. In para 50, this Court has observed as under :? "Section 319 does not impose any restriction for the exercise of power by the Court under that Section during the course of trial only. It rather empowers it to proceed under that provision even during the course of any inquiry into the matter. Sections 226, 227 and 228 of the Code relate to the inquiry stage before the Sessions Court. We respectfully disagree with the view taken by the Division Bench in Sheoram Singh case (1982 RLR 550) that without there being any statement recorded by the Court, the Sessions Judge has no power to proceed against a person not an accused in the committal order, because, as discussed earlier, in our opinion while exercising powers under section 227 relating to the discharge of an accused, the Court has not only the power but also a duty to embark on an inquiry by carefully perusing the document coming before it and to search out from the record and the documents submitted before it as to prima fade appears to be in any way involved in the crime and should be tried along with the accused already there before the Court. In doing so, the procedure laid down in Section 319 would be followed and by virtue of the deeming provision of Sub-section 4(b) of that Section, the case would proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which inquiry or trial was commenced. In doing so, the procedure laid down in Section 319 would be followed and by virtue of the deeming provision of Sub-section 4(b) of that Section, the case would proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which inquiry or trial was commenced. Thus, the meaning of the term 'evidence' appearing in Section 319 would be construed as it is ordinarily done and would not be narrowly construed so as to mean only statements recorded before the Court. Restricting the scope of Section 319 would fetter the discretion of the Court with the limitation that despite there being material it can not proceed against a person against whom there appears to be a prima facie case unless charge under Section 228 is framed and some evidence is recorded thereafter." Considering the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Dalip Singh (supra), it can not be said that the order of trial court dated 3-10-92 was illegal or contrary to law on that date. Whether that order can be set aside on the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in case of Kishun Singh (supra) dated 11-1-93. 9. The Gauhati High Court had an occasion to deal with the similar issue where the question was that when a High Court decision can be corrected in review, and observed in last but one para as under : "What we hold is that cases of the Supreme Court which were delivered earlier to the decision sought to be corrected are alone relevant and not the subsequent decisions. Two allied or cognate principles we have in our mind -one is power to review and the other is the doctrine of per in curium." When the order dated 3-10-92 was passed, there was no judgment of their Lordships contrary to that order rather that view has found support by the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Dalip Singh (supra). 10. Therefore, the order taking cognizance dated 3-10-92 can not be interfered on the ground that has not been challenged by this petition. Secondly, when this order was challenged before this Court, the petition of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 3-10-92 was upheld. 10. Therefore, the order taking cognizance dated 3-10-92 can not be interfered on the ground that has not been challenged by this petition. Secondly, when this order was challenged before this Court, the petition of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 3-10-92 was upheld. Thirdly, the decision of their Lordships in case of Kishun Singh (supra) has given on 11-1-93, i.e., subsequent to the order dated 3-10-92 and on that day, the view taken by the Full Bench in case of Dahl) Singh (supra) has supported the order of trial Court taking cognizance. The subsequent decision of the Apex Court is not enough to review the order dated 3-10-92 which was in accordance to law on the date of the order. Therefore, on either of the grounds, the order dated 3-10-92 can not be interfered with. 11. Now, it brings to me a limited issue whether the trial Court was justified in framing the charges vide order dated 17-11-92. Whether there is a prima facie case or not that depends on the facts of each case. 12. I have also perused the impugned order dated 17-11-92 and material on record. The name of the petitioner has found place in the FIR. Not only that, the eye witnesses Lalaram, Mukhram, Kailash, Surat Singh and Rohitash have also in their statements named the petitioner and supported the allegations leveled against him. Therefore, a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner to proceed against him a trial. 13. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The record of the trial court be sent back immediately.Petition dismissed. *******