RATNAKAR DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short cr. P. C.) have sought to quash the order of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur whereby he by invoking power under Section 319, Cr. P. C. has arrayed them as accused persons in the Session case registered as S. T. No. 323 of 1994 under Sections 498-A and 306, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in short is that Bitola (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), daughter of Surjan, the informant was given in marriage to accused Balwan Singh about seven years before the incident. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the parents and petitioner No. 1 is the brother of balwan Singh. It is alleged that the deceased was tortured and ill-treated by the petitioners as well as her husband as sufficient dowry had not been given in the marriage. She had been complaining to her parents that she was being pastered to get scooter, some gold ornaments and cash of Rs. 20,000/ -. Ultimately when their demand was not satisfied they committed her murder. A written report was lodged to the local police on receipt of which a case under Sections 498-A and 302, I. P. C. was registered and investigation commenced and on completion thereof a charge-sheet was led only against accused Balwan Singh under Section 498-A and Section 306, i. P. C. After commitment, the case was transferred to the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, kanpur for trial in accordance with law. During trial, the learned trial Judge recorded the evidence of Suraj, the informant (P. W. I) who in his examination-in-chief supported the prosecution version as set out in the First Information Report. He specifically stated that accused balwan Singh as well as these petitioners tortured the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. In view of such evidence learned Counsel appearing for the State filed a petition under Section 319, Cr. P. C. to bring the petitioner to the array of the accused and to proceed with the trial. Upon hearing, the learned trial Judge allowed the prayer by order dated 26th July, 1996, a copy whereof is at Annexure-6 and issued process to the petitioner for their appearance. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition. Upon hearing, the learned trial Judge allowed the prayer by order dated 26th July, 1996, a copy whereof is at Annexure-6 and issued process to the petitioner for their appearance. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the statement of informant, P. W. 1 with regard to the petitioners involvement in the incident being not complete in all respects, inasmuch, as the statement so given by P. W. 1 is examination-in-chief implicating the petitioners in the incident having not been tested by cross-examination, the same should not be construed as evidence for taking action under Section 319, Cr. P. C. Par centra, learned counsel appearing for the State would urge that in view of the law laid down by a Division bench of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal v. State of U. P. , 1999 (38) A. C. C. p. 123=i (1999)CCR 516 (DB), it was not obligatory of the Court to complete the examination of P. W. 1 for summoning the petitioner as accused with the aid of the aforesaid provision. In view of the submissions made at the Bar the sole question for consideration is whether statement of P. W. 1 recorded in examination-in-chief having not been tested by cross-examination can be treated as evidence to enable the Court to add the petitioners as accused by invoking power under Section 319, Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) WORD evidence defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act means and includes (1) all statements which the Court permits or required to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters to fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence. According to Wigmore the term evidence represents : "any knowable fact or group of facts, not a legal or a logical, principle, considered with a view to its being offered before a legal Tribunal for the purpose of producing a persuasion, positive or negative, on the part of the Tribunal, as to the truth of proposition, not of law, or of logic, on which the termination of the Tribunal is to be asked. " Tayler used the word evidence to mean "all the legal means exclusive of mere argument which tend to prove or disprove any fact that true of which is submitted to judicial investigation". Thus, the word evidence signifies the instruments by means of which the relevant facts are brought before the Court, such as, witnesses and documents. ( 5 ) CHAPTER X under caption of the examination of witnesses in the Evidence Act has catalogued various sections of which sections 137 and 138, relevant for the purpose may be referred to. A party to a proceeding examines a witness to get all material facts from him within his knowledge to support his (partys) case and such examination is called examination-in-chief. The evidence so given by the witness when challenged by the adversary in order to impeach his credibility is called cross-examination. After cross-examination, if there appears some ambiguity in the evidence of the witness, the party calling him may further examine him which is called re-examination. After all these procedures are followed, inasmuch as a witness is examined-in-chief, cross-examined and re-examined then the evidence becomes complete for appreciation of the Court. There is, however, exception to this normal rule. In certain circumstances the statement of a witness recorded in examination-in-chief can be treated as evidence even before the same is tested by cross-examination. Reference in this context may be made to the provisions contained in Chapter XIX of the Cr. P. C. In a case arising out of a complaint which is triable as a warrant case, the Magistrate records the statement of the witnesses produced by the complainant in support of the accusation, whereafter on consideration of such statement if he is of the opinion that the same is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed any offence then he shall frame the charge accordingly (See Sections 244, 245 and 246 Cr. P. C. ). A reading of the aforesaid provisions clearly goes to show that the statements of the witnesses recorded in the examination-in-chief even though has not passed through the test of cross-examination can for the limited purpose of framing a charge be treated as evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said as universal proposition of law that so long as a witness is not cross-examined his statement so given in examination-in-chief cannot be accepted as evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said as universal proposition of law that so long as a witness is not cross-examined his statement so given in examination-in-chief cannot be accepted as evidence. ( 6 ) ADVERTING to the question posed in this case it need be stated that Section 319, Cr. P. C. does not specifically provide at what stage of the trial the Court with the aid of the said provision can bring a person to the array of the accused for being tried alongwith other accused. Judicial opinion is not unanimous in this regard; some High Courts say that resort to Section 319 can be had only after the cross-examination of the witness or witnesses is complete. On the other hand, in the opinion of the other High Courts power under Section 319 can be exercised even on the basis of the evidence of a witness or witnesses recorded in examination-in-chief. So far this court is concerned conflicting views were expressed by the Single Benches. Ultimately the matter came up for adjudication before a Division Bench in Ram Gopal (supra) where Their lordships having made a discussion of various provisions of the Cr. P. C. and referring to a catena of decisions answered the question in the panel ultimate paragraph of the judgment as under : "the term evidence as used in Section 319, Cr. P. C. does not mean an evidence complete by cross-examination and the Court can take action under Section 319, Cr. P. C. on the statement made in examination-in-chief of one or more witnesses. " As a judicial precedent, the aforesaid decision is binding on me and I also concur with the view expressed by the Court as extracted above. In that view of the matter I am of the opinion that no fault can be found with the trial Judge in summoning the petitioners as accused persons on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1 recorded in examination-in-chief. Resultantly, the criminal miscellaneous application fails and the same is dismissed. In that view of the matter I am of the opinion that no fault can be found with the trial Judge in summoning the petitioners as accused persons on the basis of the evidence of P. W. 1 recorded in examination-in-chief. Resultantly, the criminal miscellaneous application fails and the same is dismissed. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, before parting with, I would like to observe that the Court in Ram Gopal (supra)relying upon the decision in Kishun singh v. State of Bihar, 1993 (3) S. C. C. 167=1 (1993) CCR 54 (SC) has held that a Court of Session has power to summon a person as an accused without recording evidence if materials on the record annexed to the report under Section 173, Cr. P. C. revealed his involvement. In Kishun Gppal (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has taken the view that on the Magistrate committing the case under Section 209, Cr. P. C. to the Court of session, the bar of Section 193 is lifted thereby investing the Court of Sessions a complete and unfettered jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence which 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 the record. I may note the aforesaid view has been over-ruled by a Larger Bench of the Honble Supreme court in the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 Criminal Law Journal p. 4618=viii (1998) SLT 40, where in paragraph 19 of the judgment Their Lordships observed : "thus, once the Session Court takes cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order the only other stage when the Court is empowered to add any other person to the array of the accused is after reaching evidence collection when powers under Section 319 of the Code can be invoked. " ( 8 ) IN view of the above, that part of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ram Gopal (supra)that looking to the materia annexed to the report under Section 173 of the Cr. P. C. , the Court of session can add a person as accused is no longer good law. .