JUDGMENT 1. By the present petition under Section 482, Cr.PC. the petitioner has agitated the validity of order dated 2.8.2005 passed by Special Judge, N.D.PS. Act Cases, Udaipur whereby upon application filed by the Public Prosecutor cognizance has- been taken against the petitioner for offence under Section 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act treating the petitioner registered owner of the vehicle in which the contraband was recovered. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that application for taking cognizance against the petitioner was filed before the learned trial court on 2.8.2005 whereas, after challan having been filed, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and passed order on 15.7.2005 while exercising power under Section 190. Cr.PC., therefore, once cognizance was taken and the learned Magistrate proceeded for trial, after three months, another application is filed for taking cognizance against the petitioner which is not permissible in law. Learned counsel for ' the petitioner contended that cognizance cannot be taken in peacemeal and it is only open for the trial Court after proceeding in the matter to take cognizance after recording evidence under Section 319, Cr.PC. According to him, the stage for taking i cognizance is left with the Court either first under Section 190 after filing of the challan, or thereafter, after recording of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if application is filed by the prosecution under Section 319, Cr.PC. that offence is made out against a person not arraigned earlier who has also taken part in the occurrence, then cognizance can be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no stage in between Section 190 and Section 319, Cr.PC. for the Magistrate to take cognizance against any person and he must proceed to take cognizance either at the initial stage after filing of the challan under Section 190 or after recording evidence, under Section 319, Cr.PC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1988 S.C. 3148, Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and judgment of this Court reported in 1999 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 301, Rajesh Sidana v. State of Rajasthan & Another . 4. In Rajesh Sidana's case (supra), the Magistrate had already taken cognizance under Section 190, Cr.PC. on 8.10.1997, however, the petitioner in that case was impleaded by order dated 15.7.1998 and took cognizance against her. 4. In Rajesh Sidana's case (supra), the Magistrate had already taken cognizance under Section 190, Cr.PC. on 8.10.1997, however, the petitioner in that case was impleaded by order dated 15.7.1998 and took cognizance against her. This Court observed that if the Magistrate was of the view that the petitioner had also taken part in the occurrence the course open to him was to summon the petitioner under Section 319, Cr.PC. after recording the prosecution evidence. Once it is found that the order was not passed under Section 319, Cr.P.C. the same could not be sustained in law. 5. In AIR 1998 S.C. 3148 , Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab , the Supreme Court expressed the view that once the Sessions 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. There is no other method for the Sessions Court to permit addition of new person or persons to the array of the accused. The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that it is not necessary for the Court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising the said powers. 6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the order under challenge cannot be sustained. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2.8.2005 is set aside. It is however made clear that the trial Court is free to exercise power under Section 319, Cr.PC. after recording evidence, at appropriate stage.Petition allowed - Impugned order of taking cognizance set aside - Trial court free to take cognizance after taking evidence.Petition allowed. *******