S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE matter was heard on 22-7-1998. ( 2 ) BY an order dated 13-1-1997 the Judicial Magistrate, First Court, at Varanasi in Crime No. 435 of 1993 the present applicants were summoned under S. 319, Cr. P. C. on the basis of certain statements made by certain witnesses in their examination-in-chief. The proceeding was initiated on a complaint after examination of the complainant and the witnesses. It was argued that the statements under Ss. 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. and those made under S. 244, Cr. P. C. were almost same and when after such evidence the Court had declined to summon the present applicants, such power could not have been exercised at a subsequent stage even under S. 319, Cr. P. C. It was further stated that an action under S. 319, Cr. P. C. could be taken after taking evidence and examination-in-chief could not be read as evidence as it was not complete by cross-examination. ( 3 ) SO far the first objection is concerned, it could only be stated that even if the earlier order of the Magistrate in not summoning the present applicants amounted to dismissal of the complaint against them under S. 203, Cr. P. C. , the same cannot act as a bar to their subsequent trial for the same offence as this dismissal of the complaint could not be read as an acquittal, as stated in the Explanation to S. 300, Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) SO far the second objection is concerned, it could only be stated that the term evidence has been used in the Cr. P. C. at different places with different connotations. Section 319, Cr. P. C. empowers a Court to summon a person who is not standing the trial if it appeared from the evidence before the Magistrate that he should be summoned and he should face the trial with the other persons already named as accused. If at all S. 319, Cr. P. C. is to be read as enabling the Magistrate to try the newly summoned persons along with the existing accused persons, then the exercise of "completion" of the evidence by cross-examination would be an unnecessary one as the whole process was to be gone afresh. In my view, the term evidence under S. 319, Cr. P. C. is to be read as enabling the Magistrate to try the newly summoned persons along with the existing accused persons, then the exercise of "completion" of the evidence by cross-examination would be an unnecessary one as the whole process was to be gone afresh. In my view, the term evidence under S. 319, Cr. P. C. cannot be interpreted narrowly to mean evidence tested by cross-examination. It should include evidence even in the examination-in-chief of a witness. ( 5 ) ALL the points having been disposed of as above, the present application stands dismissed. Application dismissed. .