Honble GUPTA, J.–This Misc. petition is directed against the order dated 22.5.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, taking cognizance against the petitioner in a case u/SS. 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC. (2). Mr. Choudhary contends that the Sessions Judge had no powers to take cognizance against the petitioner u/S. 193 Cr.P.C., and the order is illegal and with- out jurisdiction. (3). The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to justify the order of taking cognizance. (4). The Apex Court in the case of Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (1) has held that once the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the com- mittal order, the only other stage when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after recording evidence in exercise of powers u/Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. (5). The Sessions Court does not have power u/S. 193 Cr.P.C. for impleading additional accused. If the Court wants to implead new person as accused it can be done only u/S. 319 Cr.P.C. and that is possible only after evidence is recorded. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the order without recording any evidence and, therefore, the order is not sustainable. (6). Consequently, this petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed. It is made clear that this order will not prevent the learned Sessions Judge to pass appropriate order u/S. 319 Cr.P.C.