ORDER : M.M. Punchhi, CJI. - Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises in the following manner: A crime of murder and ornament-snatching was committed on a young girl. The matter was reported to the police against nine persons including the appellant. The police investigating the crime, forwarded a police report against eight persons excluding the appellant. When the matter was laid before the committal court, an unsuccessful attempt was made by the complainant to have the appellant included in the accused being committed. When the matter was placed before the Court of Session, another attempt was made by him to have the appellant summoned in order to face trial along with the other eight accused. The Court of Session declined the request, taking the view that that was not the stage at which any new accused could be associated. 3. It transpires that the trial began and charges were framed against those eight accused persons. A witness was examined by the prosecution. At that point of time, the complainant again moved the Court of Session pointing out that evidence had now come on the record justifying invocation of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court agreed with the suggestion and ordered issue of process against the appellant. His effort to have the process aborted has failed before the High Court. This is how this appeal has been filed. 4. When the matter was placed before a two-Member Bench of this Court, conflict in judicial opinion was pointed out to the effect whether the Court of Session can summon an accused who is not charge-sheeted under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The above question was understood to have been answered in the affirmative in Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 16 , and Nisar v. State of U.P., (1995) 2 SCC 23 , whereas there was a discordant note in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 4 SCC 495 . 5. On the instant fact situation, it is plain that the Court of Session issued process against the appellant after having begun the trial and having recorded some evidence of the prosecution. Such step of the Court of Session cannot even remotely be termed as transgressing the affirmative views expressed in the abovenoted two cases. 5. On the instant fact situation, it is plain that the Court of Session issued process against the appellant after having begun the trial and having recorded some evidence of the prosecution. Such step of the Court of Session cannot even remotely be termed as transgressing the affirmative views expressed in the abovenoted two cases. The third case (Raj Kishore Prasad 3) had a different fact situation, being of the pre-committal stage on the basis of which it was held that Section 319 Cr. P.C. was inapplicable. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the supposed conflict of judicial opinion need not be resolved in this case. 6. A faint attempt was made by the appellant's learned counsel to canvass that on the evidence recorded, the Court of Session was not justified in issuing process against the appellant. The contention could not be substantiated by any cogent evidence or material. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in this appeal and accordingly dismiss the same.