Honble GUPTA, J.–Through this misc. petition, petitioners Hiralal and six others have called in question the order dt. 2.5.98 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur whereby he rejected the revision filed by the petitioners preferred against the order dt. 5.4.97 of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salumber. (2). The short facts of the case are that for the death of Smt. Hema, Ashok Kumar had lodged F.I.R. No. 285/86 under Sections 304B, 120B, 306, 498A, 201 and 406 IPC at Police Station Salumber and after investigation the police submitted a challan against Prakash, husband of the deceased only and submitted a report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. against two other accused named in the F.I.R. Thereafter the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dt. 14.3.97. After that on 17.3.97 complainant chose to file private complaint on 17.3.97 making allegations against the petitioners, on which the learned Magistrate recorded the evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and vide order dt.5.4.97 summoned the petitioners as accused in the case. This order was challenged be- fore the learned Sessions Judge by way of revision petition. The revision was heard by Addl. Sessions Judge No.2 who vide impugned order upheld the order passed by the Magistrate. (3). The contention of Mr. Mehta is two fold. One, the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offences on the police report under Section 190(b) Cr.P.C. on the basis of police report and he had no power to take cognizance of the same offence on the private complaint subsequently as the taking of cognizance of the same offence twice is not permissible. Two, the Magistrate had already committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dt. 14.3.97, and therefore, he had become functus officio so far as the cognizance of the offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C. is concerned, and hence he has committed error in proceeding to record the evidence of the complainant in the private complaint. (4). The learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Mathur have not been able to support the impugned orders. (5). There is merit in the contention of Mr. Mehta that cognizance could not be taken twice by the Magistrate in respect of the same offence/s. Section 190 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder. ``190. (4). The learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Mathur have not been able to support the impugned orders. (5). There is merit in the contention of Mr. Mehta that cognizance could not be taken twice by the Magistrate in respect of the same offence/s. Section 190 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereunder. ``190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub- section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. (6). A plain reading of Section 190 Cr.P.C. shows that under Section 190 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence and not against any particular accused. Therefore, when once cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistra- te, may be on the basis of private complainant or on the basis of the police report, or upon information received from any person other than the police officer, he may issue process u/Sec. 204 Cr.P.C. against the accused persons who are alleged to have committed the offence. (7). The cognizance on the basis of the police report is taken when the Magis- trate applies his mind to the facts contained in the police report filed under Sec.173 Cr.P.C. In the case of a private complaint, the stage of taking cognizance is when the Magistrate embarks upon the enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Once the Magistrate takes the cognizance of the offence either on the basis of the private complaint or on the police report, it is not permissible that subsequently he may take cognizance again of the same offence: See Suresh vs. State of Raj. (1). (1). Not only that, once the case proceeds further either by way of recording of evidence by the Magistrate or commitment to the Sessions, as the case may be, the Magistrate becomes functus officio so far as his powers under Section 190, Cr.P.C. are concerned: Vide: Sheoram vs. State of Raj. (2). (8). In the instant case, it is not disputed that after the police submitted challan against the accused the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The moment the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. he became functus officio so far as his powers, under Section 190 Cr.P.C. in respect of the offence for which he had taken cognizance, is concerned. There- fore, he could not take cognizance of the same offence on the basis of the private complaint filed by Ashok subsequently. (9). The only provision under which additional person can be impleaded as accused in a case after the case is committed to the Court of Sessions is contained in Section 319 Cr.P.C. Under that Section, the Sessions Judge has a power to summ- on additional accused if it appears from the evidence that he had also committed the offence. Vide: Ranjit Singh vs. State of Punjab (3). That being so, in the instant case, it was not open for the Magistrate to take cognizance second time of the same offence on the basis of the private complaint for which he had already taken cognizance on the police report and had even committed that case to the Court of Sessions. (10). In the instant case, the case had already been committed and thereafter the private complaint was filed. As such, the Magistrate could not have acted under Sec.190 Cr.P.C. on the basis of the private complaint. That being so, the order taking cognizance on the private complaint of Ashok Kumar and subsequent order of summoning the petitioners are not sustainable. (11). Consequently, the petition succeeds, and the orders impugned therein are hereby quashed. This order will not prevent the Sessions Judge to pass an order u/Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. against he petitioners, if he is satisfied by the evidence produced before him about their participation in the occurrence.