U. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 3-9-2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Court No. 1), Kanpur Dehat in S. T. No. 403 of 1997 summoning the applicants for trial along with other co-accused under Section 319 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) ON 26-8-1995 at about 10. 30 a. m. Smt. Sunaina opposite party No. 2 lodged a report at P. S. Mangalpur against applicants and 8 other persons namely Uma Shankar, Matandi, Beenu,saheed Ahmad, Munney Khan, Naushad alias Pappu, Nasir Ahmad,aquil, Rayees, S. I. D. D. Singh, constable Kanaujiya and Constable Preetam Singh with the allegation that on 26-8-1995 at about 8. 00 a. m. her husband Mahendra Pal Singh had gone to Sandalpur crossing. Accused Uma Shankar and Diwakar r/o Sandalpur came there. Observing them her husband said that Lakhpati had come. On this the above persons started abusing her husband. When her husband came back to his house he narrated the story to the complainant. Taking his licensed gun her husband went to lodge report at Police Outpost Sandalpur. His younger son Nitin also went with him. After some time Nitin came back weeping home and told to the complainant that the accused persons had surrounded her husband and were abusing. On said information complainant went to Sandalpur Outpost which was at a distance of 100 paces from her house. There she observed that Ram Gopal was trying to snatch the licensed gun of her husband and in the meantime gun was fired due to which Ram Gopal and Dhruva Darshan fell down. Her husband tried to run away, but in the mean time constable Preetam Singh caught hold of him and took him to Police Outpost along with gun. By that time the two injured had died. Matandi, Beenu, Sayeed Ahmad, Munney Khan. Nausad, Naseer Ahmad, Aquil and Rayees Ahmad started causing injuries to her husband with brick bats. The complainant asked constable Pretam Singh Yadav to save her husband. But he told that let him be killed as he so deserved. By the injuries caused by the above persons her husband died on the spot. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the above report a case at crime No 2124 of 1995 was registered under Sections 147, 302 and 120-B I. P. C. against the applicants and 8 other persons. By the injuries caused by the above persons her husband died on the spot. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the above report a case at crime No 2124 of 1995 was registered under Sections 147, 302 and 120-B I. P. C. against the applicants and 8 other persons. ( 4 ) AFTER investigation the police submitted charge sheet only against Uma Shankar, Rama Shankar, Beenu, Naseer Ahmad and Aquil Ahmad. The present applicants were not challaned by the police. ( 5 ) THE case was committed to the Court of Session. During trial Smt. Sunaina (P. W. 1) was examined by the prosecution. In her statement before the Court she stated about the involvement of the applicants also. Thereafter she moved an application under Section 319 Cr. P. C. for summoning the applicants on the ground that they were also involved in the offence. The other co-accused of the case filed objection against the said applicants. The learned Sessions Judge on considering the evidence of the Smt. Sunaina (P. W. 1) held that the applicants were also involved in the offence and they are liable to be summoned for trial along with other accused persons who are already facing trial before him. Accordingly he summoned the applicants vide impugned order for trial along with other accused. ( 6 ) THE applicants have challenged the above summoning order. ( 7 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned A. G. A. and perused the record. ( 8 ) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the applicants was that the accused/applicants were summoned at belated stage which was not warranted by S. 319 Cr. P. C. In support of his contenion he placed reliance on Apex Court decision in the case of Michael Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000 (40) All. Cri C 795. Having gone through the above case the Apex Court found that the facts of the above case were totally different from the facts of present case. In the said case the application for summoning additional accused was made at the penultimate stage (after examining 54 witnesses by then) and the Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom the case was being tried, ordered two more persons to be arrayed as accused. In the said case the application for summoning additional accused was made at the penultimate stage (after examining 54 witnesses by then) and the Metropolitan Magistrate, before whom the case was being tried, ordered two more persons to be arrayed as accused. On the above state of affairs the Apex Court was of the view that if the order of the Magistrate is to sustain, the proceedings in respect of the newly added persons are to be re-commenced afresh,which means that the entire massive evidence thus far collected and the time which the Court thus far spent for recording the evidence of such a large number of witnesses, besides the cost involved for all concerned to reach up to the present stage, would all become, for all practical purposes, a waste a colossal waste. Is it so very necessary at this belated stage to bring such two additions to the array of the accused at the cost of such a de novo trial? The position in the present case is totally different. Only one witness Smt. Sunaina was examined and thereafter application under S. 319 Cr. P. C. was moved. The examination of one prosecution witness was necessary for invoking the power under S. 319 Cr. P. C. Therefore, summoning of additional accused in this case cannot be said improper on the ground as canvassed by applicants counsel. ( 9 ) THE second point raised by learned counsel for the applicants was that the accused /applicants were named in the F. I. R. as accused but after investigation they were not challaned. Since they were accused in the case they cannot be said to be covered by the expression not being the accused and therefore, they could not be summoned under S. 319 Cr. P. C. In support of this contention he placed reliance on a single Judge decision of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State of U. P. , 2001 (42) All. Cri. C. 1021. ( 10 ) SECTION 319 Cr. P. C. reads as under:-" (1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into,or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. " ( 11 ) THE Apex Court has considered the import and scope of this Section in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 1979 SC 339 . In the said case at the instance of one Mohinder Singh a criminal case registered at Police Station Dakha against Joginder Singh, Ram Singh (the two appellants), Bhan Singh,darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh,on the allegation that each one armed with a "toki" had entered his house on 30/04/1977 at 10. 00 A. M. and had caused a number of injuries to Ajaib Singh and Bir Singh who were present in the house. It was further alleged by Mohinder Singh that Darshan Singh opened the attack with toki blow from reverse side on Ajaib Singhs head whereas Ram Singh had dealt him blows with the butt of his gun and when Bir Singh tried to rescue Ajaib Singh, Joginder Singh and Ranjit Singh gave blows on his head and that on medical examination Ajaib Singh was found to have four injuries with a blunt weapon and Bir Singh was found to have suffered one injury with a blunt weapon. During the investigation the police found Joginder Singh and Ram Singh (the appellants) to be innocent and, therefore charge sheet was submitted by the police only against the remaining three accused Bhan Singh, Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh. After inquiry the three accused Bhan Singh, Darshan Singh and Ranjit Singh were committed to the Court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Ss. 453/308/323 read with S. 34 I. P. C. against them. During trial Mohinder Singh and Ajaib Singh were examined and both of them implicated Joginder Singh and Ram Singh in the incident. Thereupon at the instance of Mohinder Singh the Public Prosecutor moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge for summoning and trying Joginder Singh and Ram Singh along with the three accused who were already facing their trial. The application was opposed by the counsel for the accused principally on the ground that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction or power to summon the two appellants and direct them to be made accused to stand their trial along with three accused because they had neither been charge-sheeted nor committed and the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction or power directly to summon the two appellants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge negatived the said contention and presumably exercising his powers under S. 319 Cr. P. C. passed an order directing that the attendance of the two appellants be procured and further directing that they should stand their trial together with three accused. A revision was filed against the said order before the High Court but the High Court dismissed revisional application. The appellants then challenged the above order before the Apex Court. ( 12 ) THE Apex Court held as below :-"the expression any person not being the accused occurring in S. 319 Cr. P. C. clearly covers any person who is not being tried already by the Court and the very purpose of enacting such a provision like S. 319 (1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the Criminal Court are included in the said expression. Both under S. 193 and S. 209 the commitment is of the case and not of the accused whereas under the equivalent provision of the old code viz. Section 193 (1) and S. 207-A it was the accused who was committed and not the case. Under S. 193 read with S. 209 when a case is committed to the Court of Session in respect of an offence the Court of Session takes cognisance of the offence and not of the accused and once the Sessions Court is properly seized of the case as a result of the committal order against some accused the power under S. 319 (1) can come into play and such Court can add any person, not an accused before it, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with the other accused for the offence which such added accused appears to have committed from the evidence recorded at the trial. Once the case in respect of the offence qua those accused who are before the Court is committed then the cognizance of the offence can be said to have been taken properly by the Sessions Court and the bar of S. 193 would be out of the way and summoning of additional persons who appear to be involved in the crime from the evidence led during the trial and directing them to stand their trial along with those who had already been committed must be regarded as incidental to such cognizance and a part of the normal process that follows it; otherwise the conferral of the power under S. 319 (1) upon the Sessions Court would be rendered nugatory. Further S. 319 (4) (b) enacts a deeming provision in that behalf dispensing with the formal committal order against the newly added accused. " ( 13 ) IN another case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1998) 6 JT (SC) 512 before the Apex Court on 24-12-1986, an FIR was lodged at Rajkot Police Station (including the present appellant) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 8 P. M. and on the exhortation of the appellant one of the members of the unlawful assembly snatched away the rifle of a gunman and fired at Chamkaur Singh who succumbed to the gunshot injuries later. Police took up investigation and on completion thereof a final report was laid before the Magistrate concerned u/s. 173 Cr. P. C. against a number of persons but in that report appellant Ranjeet Singh has been completely exonerated by the police. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions the de facto complainant (Darshan Singh who furnished the first information) filed a petition before the Session Judge praying that appellant also be arraigned as an accused since his exoneration by investigating agency was improper. Learned Sessions Judge allowed the said petition and appellant was summoned as an accused in the case. That order of the Sessions Judge was challenged before the High Court but it was confirmed. The order of High Court was challenged by the appellant before the Apex Court. The Apex Court held as below :-"now it is well nigh settled that "evidence" envisaged in S. 319 of the Code is the evidence tendered during trial of the case if the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions. The order of High Court was challenged by the appellant before the Apex Court. The Apex Court held as below :-"now it is well nigh settled that "evidence" envisaged in S. 319 of the Code is the evidence tendered during trial of the case if the offence is triable by a Court of Sessions. the material placed before the committal Court cannot be treated as evidence collected during enquiry or trial. The Court of Session can deal only with the accused who is referred to in S. 209. The accused who can appear or can be brought before a Sessions Court at that stage is only that accused who is referred to in S. 209. So from the stage of committal till the Sessions Court reaches the stage indicated in Section 230 of the Code that Court can deal with only the accused referred to in S. 209 of the Code. There is no intermediary stage till then for the Session Court to add any other person to the array of the accused. 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 u/s. 319 of the Code can be invoked". ( 14 ) IN another recent case of Rakesh v. State of Haryana (2001) 5 JT (SC) 639 : ( AIR 2001 SC 2521 ) one Sri Sat Pal father of the prosecutrix Manju Bala lodged an FIR at Police Station Gharaunda, district Karnal, Haryana under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 I. P. C. on the allegation that his minor daughter Manju Bala aged about 16 years had gone from the house on 15/03/1998 at about 7. 30 P. M. at bara (the place where cattle are tethered) but did not return thereafter. He complained that his daughter was taken away by Prem Chand, Rakesh and Jai Bhagwan due to previous enmity with the object of committing rape. On 17-3-1998, the girl and accused Prem Chand were found in Noida by the police. After investigation, the police found that the appellants Rakesh and Jai Bhagwan were not involved in the case. Therefore, charges were framed only against Prem Chand. During trial PWs 1, 2 and 3 were examined by the prosecution. On 17-3-1998, the girl and accused Prem Chand were found in Noida by the police. After investigation, the police found that the appellants Rakesh and Jai Bhagwan were not involved in the case. Therefore, charges were framed only against Prem Chand. During trial PWs 1, 2 and 3 were examined by the prosecution. The prosecutrix was examined as PW 4 and her cross-examination had begun, when the Public Prosecutor moved an application under S. 319 Cr. P. C. for arraigning the appellants as additional accused. The learned Trial Judge, by an order dated 15/07/2000 arraigned the appellants as additional accused and summoned them to stand trial. The appellants preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Thereafter, appeal was preferred before the Apex Court. The Apex Court held as below :-"sub-SEC. (1) of S. 319 itself provides that in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offecne, if it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such persons for the offence for which he appears to have committed. Further in case of inquiry there may not be any question of cross-examining the witness. The decision of this Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1979 SC 339 ) nowhere lays down that before a person is added as accused in a session trial case, he should be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses whose evidence is recorded. On the contrary, it lays down that once the Sessions Court is seized of the matter as a result of the committal order against some accused the power under S. 319 (1) can come into play and Court can add any person, not an accused before it, as an accused and direct him to be tried along with other accused. The Court has further observed that the very purpose of enacting S. 319 (1) clearly shows that even persons who have been dropped by the police during investigation but against whom evidence showing their involvement in the offence comes before the criminal Court are included in the expression "any person not being the accused. " The question of testing the evidence by cross-examination would arise only after addition of the accused. " The question of testing the evidence by cross-examination would arise only after addition of the accused. There is no question of cross-examining the witness prior to adding such person as accused. Section 319 does not contemplate an additional stage of first summoning the person and giving him an opportunity of cross-examining the witness who has deposed against him and thereafter deciding whether such person is to be added as accused or not. Word evidence occurring in Sub-section is used in compreshensive and broad sense which would also include the material collected by the investigating officer and the material or evidence which comes before the Court and from which the Court can prima facie conclude that person not arraigned before it is involved in the commission of the crime. In our view, there cannot be a dispute that power under S. 319 is to be sparingly used. but that would not mean that when a prosecutrix names three persons who were involved in the serious crime are not to be added as accused by exercise of such power. " ( 15 ) IN the case of Pradeep Kumar v. State of U. P. 2001 (42) All. Cri. C. 1021 relied on by learned counsel for the applicants, it was held by learned single Judge that,"learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in the order itself it is mentioned that the said accused Pradeep was nominated in the F. I. R. and charge-sheet was not submitted by the Investigating Officer. The reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist upon 2000 (40) ACC page 795 to argue that when a person was already accused in the F. I. R. and the charge-sheet was not submitted against him, the provision of S. 319 Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked. The said decision of the Honble Supreme Court is very clear on this point when it is mentioned that the basic requirements for invoking the above S. 319 Cr. P. C. is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. P. C. is that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. In this case, the revisionist was arraigned as accused and therefore, the learned Lower Court committed illegality in summoning the revisionist. The order dated 29-11-2000 is, therefore, set aside. " ( 16 ) IN the above case of Pradeep Kumar, (supra) reliance was also placed on the Apex Court decision in the cae of Michael Machado v. C. B. I. (supra ). The relevant para 9 of the report of the said case is quoted as below:-"9. The basic requirements for invoking the above section that it should appear to the Court from the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry that some other person, who is not arrainged as an accused in that case, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already arraigned. It is not enough that the Court entertained some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. In other words, the Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects. First is that the other person has committed an offfence. Second is that for such offence that other person could as well, be tried along with the already arraigned accused. " ( 17 ) WITH profound respect to the learned single Judge I may observe that there is nothing in the said case of Michael Machado that an accused named in the F. I. R. has to be treated as an accused arraigned in the case though he was not facing trial. In the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Michael Machado ( AIR 2000 SC 1127 ), Joginder Singh ( AIR 1979 SC 339 ), Ranjit Singh ( AIR 1998 SC 3148 ) and Rakesh (supra) the words any person not being accused occurring in S. 319 Cr. P. C. were interpreted to mean any person who is not arraigned as an accused before the Court. As it is evident from the facts of above cases narrated earlier, the accused who were summoned u/s. 319 Cr. P. C. were interpreted to mean any person who is not arraigned as an accused before the Court. As it is evident from the facts of above cases narrated earlier, the accused who were summoned u/s. 319 Cr. P. C. were named in the F. I. R. but were not charge sheeted by the police and were not facing trial and they were held to be persons "not being the accused". In the above cases the Apex Court has categorically held that a person who is not accused before the Court may be summoned under S. 319 (1) Cr. P. C. if the other conditions laid down in the said section are fulfilled. The expression "any person not being the accused" has no-where been interpreted by the Apex Court in any of the above cases including Michael Machados case that the person who is named in the F. I. R. but was not charge sheeted by the police and had not been committed to the Court of Session was the person being accused. In Michael Machados case ( AIR 2000 SC 1127 ) words used that some other person who is not arraigned as an accused in that case denotes the person not arraigned as accused before the Court. ( 18 ) IN LAW LEXICON the word ARRAIGNhas been interpreted as below:-"arraign", is to put a thing in order, or in its proper place. To call a man to answer in form of law. A prisoner is arraigned, when he is indicted and brought to trial. To call to or set at the bar of a Court, in order to plead guilty or not guilty to the matter charged in an indictment or information. " Thus there is no ambiguity that the person,"who is not arraigned as an accused in that case" means the person who is not accused in the case pending before the Court. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, though I find myself unable to agree with the view expressed by the learned single Judge in Pradeep Kumars case (supra), I do not feel the necessity of making reference to a larger Bench as the position of law is well settled in the Apex Court decisions, which have been referred to above. ( 20 ) IN view of the above discussions and observations I find that the order under revision does not require any interference. ( 20 ) IN view of the above discussions and observations I find that the order under revision does not require any interference. The revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed. .