JUDGMENT Honble Virendra Singh, J.—Kalyan Singh, Dharmendra and Ramendra Singh have preferred this revision against the judgement and order dated 28.8.2002 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in ST No. 596/2001 under Section 307, I.P.C., PS Heempur District Bijnor whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Bijnor has summoned the revisionists under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for the offence in question. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State of U.P. while no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction because there was no any evidence in the case diary whereby the revisionists could be sent for trial as an accused and since they have not committed any offence, the learned Sessions Judge illegally summoned the accused/revisionists. Sanjeev Kumar who is alleged to have received gun shot injuries has stated in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. that Rampal Singh had fired upon him and due to that fire, he had received injuries and therefore, the police has charge-sheeted him for the offence and submitted final report against the accused/revisionists. Without examining Sanjeev Kumar, the learned Sessions Judge committed error thereby summoning the revisionists even without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. The complainant Preetam Singh was examined as PW 1 and he has also not been cross examined and therefore, his evidence is also not reliable. Without examining the injured person, summoning of the revisionists as accused is wholly illegal. 4. Learned AGA on behalf of the State contended that there is no error either of law or on the facts of the case in the impugned order which has been passed by learned Sessions Judge very much perfect, thereby invoking the jurisdiction vested in the Sessions Judge as per provisions under Section 319, Cr.P.C. at the time of trial and since PW 1 Preetam Singh has already been examined, who has supported the prosecution case against the revisionist/accused persons, therefore summoning of the revisionists under Section 319, Cr.P.C. is very much perfect in the eyes of law. 5. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, I have gone through the entire facts and circumstances on record. 5. In the light of the aforesaid contentions, I have gone through the entire facts and circumstances on record. The law is very much clear for summoning of a person under Section 319, Cr.P.C. not shown as accused as is laid down in various cases by Hon’ble the Apex Court and High Courts in our country which is summarized below : “For addition of a person as an accused, the Court is required to see whether prima facie case to arrive at satisfaction that evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution if un rebutted would lead to conviction against such persons against whom process is sought to be issued, is in existence. The power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, which is confirmed on the Courts and such powers should be used there sparingly and only if compelling reasons exit for taking cognizance appearing from evidence against the other person, against whom cognizance has not been taken that he has committed the offence. The basic requirement for summoning an accused under aforesaid provisions is to see that the evidence collected during trial or in the inquiry make a prima facie case worth conviction against some other person who is not arranged as an accused in that case. It is not enough to entertain some doubt, from the evidence, about the involvement of another person in the offence. The Court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence already collected regarding two aspects that the other person has committed an offence and that other person could as well be tried along with the already arranged accused. The discretionary powers of the Court under this provision should be exercised only to achieve criminal justice. If the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or Supervising Officer is to be treated as determinative, then the very purpose of Section 319 of the Code would be frustrated. The conclusion that the I.O.’s satisfaction should be given primacy is unsustainable. Evidence which is tested by cross-examination is not meant for Section 319, Cr.P.C. because question of testing evidence would arise only after attendance of the accused and therefore question of cross-examination could not arise prior to add a person as accused since co-accused persons also have no locus to file any objection against the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the co-accused.” 6. In the light of the aforesaid law, the facts of the case revealed that Preetam Singh lodged an FIR against four persons, namely Rampal (charge sheeted and facing trial), Kalyan Singh, Dharmendra and Ramendra Singh. The Investigating Officer found that only Rampal had committed the crime and therefore, he submitted final report against the revisionist. At the time of trial against Rampal, Preetam Singh is examined as PW 1. He stated on oath before the Trial Court that all the four persons named in the FIR had participated in the occurrence and all the four persons who were having arms in their hands had opened fire on him and his nephew named Sunil and Chhote and on his son-in-law named Sanjeev as a result of which, Sanjeev Kumar received gunshot injuries and others luckily escaped unhurt. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge thereby finding evidence on record against the revisionist summoned them for facing the trial. 7. In my view, since the evidence of PW 1 Preetam Singh is sufficient and has been found sufficient by the learned Sessions Judge at the time of summoning the revisionist, there is no good ground to intervene in the impugned order in this revision which is meant for a limited purpose. 8. So far as the question of opportunity to the revisionist for hearing is concerned, there is no provision that prospective accused persons should be given an opportunity for hearing before summoning them. The evidence recorded on examination of PW 1 Preetam Singh has to be termed evidence even without cross examination of the witnesses because the question of cross examination of the witnesses shall arise after summoning of the accused by the accused persons. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that statement of prosecution witnesses without the said witnesses having been cross examined constitute “evidence” within the meaning of Section 319 CrPC as is the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh and others v. State of Haryana, 2001 (3) Crimes 330 (SC). 9. It is settled law that the stage of evaluation of evidence comes at the end of trial and not before that as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Mahant Amarnath v. State of Haryana, (1983 Uchatam Nyayalaya Nirnay Sar 138) (SC). 9. It is settled law that the stage of evaluation of evidence comes at the end of trial and not before that as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sri Mahant Amarnath v. State of Haryana, (1983 Uchatam Nyayalaya Nirnay Sar 138) (SC). The learned Sessions Judge has referred in his judgement the various citations, on which basis it has been rightly held that it is not necessary for the Court to wait until entire evidence is collected for exercising the power under Section 319, Cr.P.C. and therefore, the question of cross examination by the accused to the witnesses before summoning them does not arise and the question of testing the evidence by cross examination would arise only after addition of the accused. The provisions under Section 319, Cr.P.C. does not contemplate an additional stage of first summoning the person and giving him an opportunity of hearing to cross examine the witness who has deposed against him and then to decide whether such person is to be added as an accused or not. Therefore, the question of cross examination of the witness before summoning of the accused does not arise. The learned Sessions Judge thereby finding the evidence sufficient on record and summoning the accused as per provisions under Section 319, Cr.P.C. committed no error either of law or on the facts of this case and therefore, I do not find any substance in this revision which is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed accordingly. ————