Honble YAMIN, J.–By this Misc. Petition petitioners Ganesha Ram, Om Kumar and Hanuman have challenged the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu dated 5.12.1998 by which he ordered to frame charge under Section 302 and in the alternative under Section 302/34 IPC against them. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the record. (3). Briefly stated, on 23.1.1997 at 1.30 A.M. Ladu Ram reported to police to the effect that on 22.1.1997 at about 9 P.M. when he was going to meet his mother residing with his younger brother, he heard a noise of `Maarlo-Maarlo. He went towards the house of Mamraj and found that Ganesh Ram, Mahavir, Rajuram, Onkarmal and Hanuman were giving beatings to Mamraj. Ganesha Ram was armed with gandasi, Mahavir with a barchhi and the rest of three were armed with lathis. Ganesha Ram inflicted blows by Gandasi and Mahavir by barchhi on the head of Mamraj. Mamraj fell down. Then Rajuram, Onkar and Hanuman inflicted lathi blows on the person of Mamraj. Later on Mamraj died. Police registered a case and after investigation filed challan only against Rajuram. Investigation was kept pending against Ganesha Ram, Onkarmal, Hanuman and Mahavir under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. When challan was submitted, learned Magistrate took cognizance against Ganesha Ram, Onkar, Hanuman and Rajuram and summoned them for committing offence under Section 302 IPC. They were committed to Sessions where charges were framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as stated above. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 21.4.1997 passed by learned Magistrate taking cognizance was illegal and that the order of commitment itself was without jurisdiction and consequently the order to frame charge is illegal. (5). On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor tried to support the order of learned Magistrate as well as of learned Sessions Judge. (6). I have given my thoughtful consideration. The relevant law is Raj Kishore Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1), wherein it has been held that a Magistrate undertaking commitment under Section 209 Cr. P.C. of a case triable by a court of Sessions has no jurisdiction to summon a new offender and has no power to and a person as accused under Section 319 Cr. P.C. when handling a matter under Section 209 Cr. P.C. of a case triable by a court of Sessions has no jurisdiction to summon a new offender and has no power to and a person as accused under Section 319 Cr. P.C. when handling a matter under Section 209 Cr. P.C. So the learned Magistrate could not have summoned the petitioners by taking cognizance against them by order dated 21.4.1997. What was required that he should have committed the case to learned Sessions Judge and in case the Sessions Judge after recording evidence would have found a prima facie case against the petitioners, he could have added them as accused persons under Section 319 Cr. P.C. This Court in Kan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2), decided on 22.9.1999 following Raj Kishores case (supra) and after discussing all relevant law set aside such an order of Magistrate taking cognizance. (7). In the case in hand there is still a Gordian knot which is to be cut. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges against the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that when prima facie it has been found that the charges are made out against the petitioners, this Court should not appreciate and weigh material on record for coming to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioners could not have been framed as the settled law is that charge can be framed even on the basis of strong suspicion. This argument is not valid in this case as when the Magistrate himself could not have taken cognizance and could not have committed the accused petitioners for trial to the learned Sessions Judge, the order framing charge against them would itself to be illegal. Such a question arose before this Court in Loku Ram & Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (3), decided on 25.2.1997, and it was held that where in challan papers the police have not otherwise forwarded the names of the petitioners as accused persons before Magistrate, the Magistrate could not have committed the accused petitioners to the Sessions Judge and, therefore, all subsequent proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction and bad in law. When it is found so that the order of commitment was not legal, all subsequent proceedings including the order framing of charge in this case has to be quashed. (8). When it is found so that the order of commitment was not legal, all subsequent proceedings including the order framing of charge in this case has to be quashed. (8). Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the petitioners as well as of the learned Sessions Judge dated 5.12.1998 ordering framing of charge qua petitioners are set aside. However, it is made clear that where in the course of trial it appears to the learned Additional Sessions Judge from the evidence that petitioners have committed offence for which they could be tried together with Raju Raj, it may proceed against them as per provisions of Section 319 Cr. P.C. It is expected that the learned Sessions Judge shall expedite the matter and finish up the proceedings according to law preferably within one year.