JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Perused the orders impugned passed in the aforesaid three cases. 3. In these cases, it is not necessary to delineate the facts of each case, inasmuch as, basic question involved is whether powers under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised on the basis of the statements recorded by the police or documents filed alongwith charge-sheet or it should be exercised on the basis of statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded before the Court. Since in all these cases stage of recording evidence before Court has not arrived, therefore, Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code is not attracted and as such summoning orders of the accused-petitioners are bad in law. 4. In all these three cases, the accused-petitioners have been summoned on the basis of a decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in case of Dalip Singh and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 Cr.L.J. (Raj.) 596 . 5. The present controversy came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 R.C.C. 527 where in paragraph 5, it is specifically ruled that according to decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kishan Singh v. State of Bihar, 1993 Cr.L.J. 1700 , the powers under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked in a case where no evidence has been led at the trial wherefrom it can be said that the additional accused appear to have involved themselves in the commission of the crime along with other co-accused already sent up for trial by the prosecution. 6. The aforesaid question again came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Mahavir Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 1995(3) W.L.C. (Raj.) 664 where it is again ruled that additional accused can be summoned only if it is so appears from the evidence at the trial and not otherwise. 7. In case of Ashok Kumar (supra) and in case of Mahavir Prasad (supra), the evidence before the court were not recorded and cognizance were not taken on the basis of evidence recorded before the court but on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency, therefore, in those two cases, the learned Single Judges sitting singly set aside the orders taking cognizance and the petitions were allowed. 8. 8. Facts and circumstances of the present cases are squarely covered from the decision rendered in cases of Ashok Kumar (supra) and Mahavir Prasad (supra), therefore, the present three petitions also deserve to be allowed and the orders taking cognizance against the petitioners are liable to be set aside. 9. The aforesaid controversy recently came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in case of Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and another, 1996 (2) All India Cr.Law Reporter 419 where in paragraph 13, their Lordships ruled which reads thus: 13. S/Shri K.B. Sinha and H.L. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on opposite sides, have heavily dwelt upon Kishun Singh and others v. State of Bihar, 1993 (2) S.C.C. 16 to contend, that on plain reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 319, there could be no doubt, that it must appear from the evidence tendered in the course of any inquiry or trial, that any person not being the accused, has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused, and that the said power could be exercised only if it so appears from the evidence adduced at the trial and not otherwise. Since that stage has not arrived in the instant case it is maintained that Section 319 is inapplicable. This is obviously correct. No where has any evidence being recorded invoked Section 319 of the Code. In the aforesaid case, this Court has viewed that Sub-Section (1) of Section 319 contemplates existence of some evidence appearing in the course of trial, wherefrom the court can prima facie conclude that the person not arraigned before it, is involved in the commission of the crime, for which, he can be tried with those already named by the police. Even a person who had earlier been discharged was spelled out to fall within the sweep of the power conferred by Section 319 of the Code. Therefore this Court's view as crystallized is that in strictosensu, Section 319 of the Code cannot be invoked in a case where no evidence had been led at a trial, wherefrom it can be said that the accused, other than the one facing trial, appears to have been involved in the commission of the crime." 10. Therefore this Court's view as crystallized is that in strictosensu, Section 319 of the Code cannot be invoked in a case where no evidence had been led at a trial, wherefrom it can be said that the accused, other than the one facing trial, appears to have been involved in the commission of the crime." 10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that, the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this court in case of Dalip Singh (supra) is no more good law and the orders passed in all these three cases relying upon the aforesaid Full Bench decision are liable to be set aside.Consequently, the orders passed, taking cognizance against the petitioners Smt. Lalita and Smt. Kamla in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 181/94, taking cognizance against petitioner Indra Devi in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 481/91 and taking cognizance against petitioner Smt. Sushila Devi in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 455/94 are hereby quashed and set aside and all these three afore-mentioned Criminal Misc. Petitions are allowed with a direction to the respective learned Magistrates to dispose of the aforesaid cases expeditiously within a reasonable period in accordance with law.Petitions allowed. *******