JUDGMENT 1. - This revision filed by accused petitioners is directed against the order dated 7th July, 1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karauli, whereby cognizance was taken against these petitioners for offence under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC. 2. Notice to non-petitioners was served. 3. Mr. Madhav Mitra put appearance on behalf of State of Rajasthan. None appeared on behalf of N.R No.2. 4. Heard arguments and perused the impugned order. 5. It is argued on behalf of petitioners that an F.I.R. was lodged on 21st September, 1997, at Police Station Masal-Pur, district Karauli, about the murder of Ramesh Giri. After usual investigation, Police filed challan against the accused persons Rop Singh, Mohar Singh, Jhandel Jeetam @ Geetam, Ajmer and Shivara before the concerned Magistrate, who committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, Karauli for trial. On 27th May, 1999, complainant filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge for taking cognizance against the present petitioners Pooran and Sugreev. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, took cognizance against these petitioners for above mentioned offence. 6. It is further argued that on this point, law is settled that if Police files a challan for a sessions triable offence against some persons and Magistrate commits that case to Sessions, then Sessions Court can not add new person or persons to the array of the accused except under Section 319 Cr.RC. Learned Sessions Judge can exercise this power under Section 319 Cr.PC. only after recording some prosecution evidence in the Court. The word 'Evidence' envisaged in section 319 Cr.RC. is the evidence adduced during the trial of the case. It is urged that in the present matter, learned Sessions Judge Karauli took cognizance against these accused petitioners without recording any evidence, therefore, impugned order is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 7. In support of his arguments, Mr. Gupta placed reliance on Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 (7) SCC 149 . 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor argued that if the Court is inclined to accept this revision, then prosecution should be given liberty to file an application under Section 319 Cr.RC. against these petitioners after producing some prosecution witnesses. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned RP, perused the impugned order and also gone through the judgment cited before me. 10. against these petitioners after producing some prosecution witnesses. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned RP, perused the impugned order and also gone through the judgment cited before me. 10. In the present matter, challan for offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC was filed against Mohar Singh, Jhandel etc. before the concerned Court and that Court committed that case to Sessions Court Karauli. In that case, these petitioners were not accused and that Sessions Court took cognizance against these petitioners on the application of complainant for offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC but it was done before recording any prosecution evidence. 11. In Ranjit Singh's case (supra) Hon. Supreme Court held that "evidence" envisaged in Section 319 of the Code is the evidence tendered during trial of the case if the offence is triable by a Court of Session. The material placed before the committal court can not be treated as evidence collected during enquiry or trial.It is further held as as under:- "With the committal order, the Sessions Court gets unfettered jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences involved in the case. But the crucial question is whether such jurisdiction would envelop powers to summon any person as an accused other than those covered by the committal order. From the stage of committal till the Sessions Court reached the stage of evidence collection indicated in Section 230 of the Code, that Court can deal with only the accused referred to in Section 209 of the code. There is no intermediary stage till then for the Sessions Court to add any other person to the array of the accused and further that once the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence peasant 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. There is no other power for the Sessions Court to permit addition of new person or person to the array of the accused. However, it is not necessary for the Court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers." 12. After going through the above judgment and Section 319 Cr.RC. There is no other power for the Sessions Court to permit addition of new person or person to the array of the accused. However, it is not necessary for the Court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers." 12. After going through the above judgment and Section 319 Cr.RC. with other relevant provisions of Code, I am of the view that learned Sessions Judge could not take cognizance against these petitioners before recording some evidence. The order passed by learned Sessions Judge is illegal and deserves to be set-aside. 13. Consequently, I allow this revision and set-aside the impugned order dated 7th July, 1999. But it is made clear that prosecution is at liberty to file an application under Section 319 Cr.RC. to add these petitioners or any other persons as an accused after producing some prosecution evidence.Revision Petition allowed. *******