JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 13.3.2003 where by cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 324, 323 and 307 I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 4/2003. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 17.10.2002, one Vinod Tagoria submitted a written report at Police Station Ganj alleging about the offence under Sections 323, 324, 307 I.P.C. on which F.I.R. No. 124/2002 was registered. After investigation, the police filed challan against one person, named as Chandresh Shankhla and police gave final report in favour of the petitioners. After filing of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and when the Court of Sessions was hearing arguments on framing of the charges, the Public Prosecutor made an oral submission to take cognizance against the petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge ordered to summon the present petitioners by non-bailable warrants and took cognizance against them. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order. 4. The only contention of the present petitioners is that once a case has been committed to the Court of Sessions for one accused only, then before the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C., other co-accused cannot be prosecuted on the same evidence and looking at the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the impugned order is perverse, illegal and liable to be quashed. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order goes to show that there is no factual dispute about the fact that at the stage of framing charges, additional accused has been implicated in the trial and the learned trial Court has ordered to summon the present petitioners and cognizance has been taken against them for the offences tinder Sections 323, 324 and 307 read with Sections 34 I.P.C. Section 319 Cr.P.C., which is relevant provisions for deciding this issue, reads as under: "319. Power to proceed against the other person appearing to be guilty of offence. Power to proceed against the other person appearing to be guilty of offence. (1) Where, in course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such persons for the offence which he appears to have committed. (2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid. (3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summon, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed. (4) Where the Court proceed against any person under sub-section (1) then (a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and witness re-heard, (b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person, when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced." 6. On a plain reading of Section 319(1) Cr.P.C., it is clear that in the course of any trial of an offence if it appears from the evidence that any person, not being accused, has committed offence, then that person can be tried together on the strength of this provision. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998 Cr.L.R. (SC) 703 , wherein it has been held as under: "On a plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 319 there can be no doubt that it must appear from the evidence tendered in the course of any inquiry or trial that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which he could be tried together with the accused. This power, it seems clear to us, can be exercised only if it so appears from the evidence at the trial and not otherwise. This power, it seems clear to us, can be exercised only if it so appears from the evidence at the trial and not otherwise. Therefore this sub-section contemplates existence of some evidence appearing in the course of trial wherefrom the Court can prima facie conclude that the person not arraigned before it is also involved in the commission of the crime for which he can be tried with those already named by the police." 7. Hence, in the present case, when once Sessions judge has taken cognizance of the offence pursuant to the committal order, only stage when the Court is empowered to add any other persons to the arraigned of the accused, is after recording the evidence, then only Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. Before that, the Sessions Court does not have any power for addition of a new person to the arraigned of the accused. Of course, it is not necessary for the Court to wait until the entire evidence is collected for exercising of the said power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 8. Looking at the above factual and legal position, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside.Needless to observe that by this order, the power of the Sessions Court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are not restricted.Petition allowed. *******