JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur whereby the application filed by the prosecution purporting to be under section 193 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. The brief facts relevant for the decision of this revision petition are that Mangla -Ram lodged the FIR on 5.3.1996 at Police Station Peepar City against five persons. The police registered a case under sections 307, 458, 323 & 324 IPC and Sections 24 & 27 of the Arms Act and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against three persons only. The accused named in the FIR namely Subhash and Goparam were excluded from the charge-sheet. 3. By moving the above application under section 193 Cr.P.C., the prosecution prayed that Subhash and Goparam against whom there is enough material be summoned to face the trial before the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned order, declined to entertain the above application on the ground that he was not empowered to sumon the accused persons under section 193 Cr.P.C. and the stage will only be arrived when evidence was recorded to enable the Court to exercise its powers under section 319 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel has cited Kishan Singh v. State of Bihar, 1993 Cr.L.R. (SC) 193. In this case, the Apex Court, while interpreting Sections 193, 209 & 319 Cr.P.C. observed that Court of Sessions, after commitment of case, can issue summons to other persons against whom there is material on record for facing the trial. The Supreme Court, therefore, found the order of the Sessions Judge exercising the powers u /s. 193 Cr.P.C. in a order and in accordance with law. Hence, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous. He should have entertained the above application with reference to the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. and decide the application on merits. 5. In Kishan Singh's case, the Supreme Court observed : "On a plain reading of Section 193 as it presently stands once the case is committed to the Court of Session by a Magistrate under the Code, the restriction placed on the power of the Court of Sessions to take cognizance of an offence as a Court of original jurisdiction gets lifted. On the Magistrate committing the case under section 209 to the Court of Session the bar of Section 193 is lifted thereby investing the Court of Session complete and unfettered jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence which would include the summoning of the person whose complicity in the commission of the crime can prima facie be gathered from the material available on record." "We are in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the stage for the exercise of power under section 319 of the Code had not reached, inasmuch as, the trial had not commenced and evidence was not led, since the Court of Session had the power under section 193 of the Code to summon the appellants as their involvement in the commission of the crime prima facie appeared from the record of the case, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order as it is well-settled that once it is found that the power exists the exercise of power under a wrong provision will not render the order illegal or invalid." 6. From the above observations, it is clear that on the Magistrate committing the case u /s. 209 to the Court of Sessions, the bar of Section 193 Cr.P.C. is lifted thereby investing the Court of Sessions complete and unfettered jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence which would include the summoning of the person or persons whose complicity in the commission of the crime can prima facie be covered from the material available on the record. 7. Hence, the approach of the learned Sessions Judge was erroneous and in complete violation of the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. 8. I, therefore, accept the revision petition set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned Sessions Judge to decide the application on merits in accordance with the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions judge will decide the above application expeditiously as other persons are facing trial and the case is said to be fixed for framing of charges on 15.4.1997.Revision petition allowed. *******