Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been summoned by the impugned order dated 6.1.1999 under section 193 CrPC on the basis of material already on record. He urged that the order is against the law and amounts to miscarriage of justice. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon a decision reported in 1998 Supreme Court Cases Cri. 1554 (Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab). Learned counsel urged that in view of this authority the Court cannot summon any person not already arrayed u/s 319 CrPC on the material placed before the committal Court during the investigation and trial. In this case authority of Supreme Court over-ruled Kishan Singh v. State of Bihar reported in (1993) 2 SCC 16 = 1993 SCC (Cri) 470 where the Court had taken the view that the power of Sessions Court u/s 193 CrPC to take cognizance of offence would include the summoning of the person or persons whose complicity in the commission of the crime can prima facie be gathered from the material available on record. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to show any authority to the contrary. I have considered the contentions. In view of the latest decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case which is a decision of three Hon'ble judges of the Apex Court the decision of Kishun Singh case summoning accused u/s 193 CrPC has been over-ruled. Consequently the learned Court below had no jurisdiction to summon the accused u/s 193 CrPC. The accused/applicant can, however, be summoned u/s 319 CrPC in accordance with law laid down in the said authority. The petition is disposed of at this initial stage and the impugned order is quashed to that extent. It shall, however, be open to the learned trial Court to summon the applicant if he so thinks in accordance with the provisions u/s 319 CrPC the law laid down in the said authority after evidence is laid. A.K. Barna for applicant; K.S. Tomar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for State.