G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. This revision is directed against the order, dated 21-9-1995 passed by the IXth Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra in S. T. No. 461 of 94, State v. Dal Chand & Ors. , whereby he has ordered the summoning of the accused revisionist purportedly under Section 319, Cr. P. C. 2. A F. I. R. was lodged on 20-9-1993, in which Bhagwan Singh, revisionist was named along with other co-accused persons. It is alleged that all of them in prosecution of a common object of an unlawful assembly, which they had form, attacked the prosecution side causing injuries to Teja Singh Ram Ki shore, Suraj Mai, Smt. Maya Devi, Smt. Babli, Lal Singh and Chandra Bhan with pharsas, sariyas, clothes, etc. 3. On the basis of the report, the case was registered and the investi gation followed. The police submitted a charge-sheet against all the accused persons, including the accused Bhagwan Singh, revisionist. 4. When the matter came up before the learned Magistrate concerned, the committing court, on the date of the passing of the committal order. Accused Bhagwan Singh was absent. The learned Magistrate committed all the accused but he did not mention Bhagwan Singh as amongst the accused, whose case was being committed. 5. An application dated 1-8-1995 was moved by Ram Narain, complainant before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra, purportedly under Section 193, Cr. P. C. alleging that some allegations have been made against all the accused, including Bhagwan Singh in the F. I. R. but inci dentally the case of Bhagwan Singh was not committed to the Court of Sessions. Therefore, he should be summoned. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, "by virtue of the impugned order, summoned the accused Bhagwan Singh to face trial although his case was not committed. 6. Feeling aggrieved against this order, this revision has been preferred. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist. There is none for the opposite party. No counter- affidavit has been filed. 8. Under Section 193, Cr. P. C. , it has been provided as follows: "except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being force, no court of Session" shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdic tion unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code. " Therefore fide the learned Addl. " Therefore fide the learned Addl. Session Judge, Agra had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter unless the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 9. Admittedly, the accused Bhagwan Singh was not committed to the Court of Session, Therefore, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra could not have passed the imputed order. Of course, he could have passed an order under Section 319 of the Cr. P. C. But that was possible only after recording the evidence of some of PWs and specially, after conclusion of their cross-examination as a whole. The other course open was that the complainant could have moved the learned Magistrate ex-committing Magistrate concerned with a request that the case of Bhagwan Singh be also committed to the Court of Session. But these courses were not adopted and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Agra stretched the case for trial before him as an original jurisdiction (sic) Court which he did not possess the power to do. This order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was with out jurisdiction and wrong and the same deserves to be set aside. 10. The revision is allowed. The order dated 21-9-1995 passed by the IXth Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra is set aside. It is made clear that the learned IXth Addl. Sessions Judge, Agra can still exercise the jurisdiction under Section 319, Cr. P. C. after following the procedure prescribed, or the case of Bhagwan Singh is committed by the learned Magistrate. Revision allowed. .