ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been jointly filed by accused-petitioners Shodan Singh S/o Shri Ramji Lal and Lakhan Nai S/o Shri Bhagwat, praying for quashment of order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur, in Sessions Case No.04/2016, arising out of F.I.R. No.243/2015, registered with Police Station Chiksana, dated 15.08.2015, whereby he, by invoking Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. ordered to summon the accused petitioners by non-bailable warrants, as additional accused, to face trial for various offences. 2. A First Information Report No.243/2015 was registered with Police Station Chiksana, for offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 307 and 302 IPC, on the basis of a written report submitted by one Daya Chand at R.B.M. Hospital, Bharatpur to Padam Singh, ASI of Police. Therein it was alleged by the informant that on that day, when his cousin Rakesh was waiting for a tempo, accused Shodan Singh and Lakhan, accompanied by other accused-persons, encircled him. While accused Shodan Singh and Lakhan were armed with a country made pistols ('katta'), accused Charan Singh @ Lohre had a 'farsa' and others had sticks with them. On seeing them, Rakesh made hue and cry and after hearing the same, Charan Singh, Naresh, Tejpal and Dinesh came to the place of incident. Thereafter, accused Shodan Singh fired a shot from 'katta' at Rakesh, which hit him on the chest, as a result of which, he fell down. Subsequent thereto, Charan Singh tried to intervene but accused Gulab Singh caught hold of him from behind and inflicted a 'farsa' blow on his head, followed by 'lathi' blows by accused Raju and accused Raghuveer. It was further alleged that accused Lakhan Singh reached the terrace of the house of Shodan Singh and opened fire recklessly so that other persons could not intervene. Dead body of Rakesh was lying in the mortuary of the hospital and injured were admitted in the hospital. 3. It was further alleged that accused Lakhan Singh reached the terrace of the house of Shodan Singh and opened fire recklessly so that other persons could not intervene. Dead body of Rakesh was lying in the mortuary of the hospital and injured were admitted in the hospital. 3. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against 10 accused persons (excluding the petitioners and three others named in FIR) for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. However, investigation was kept pending against accused Khajan Singh under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bharatpur, took cognizance of offence under Sections 323, 341, 336, 325, 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. against accused Gulab Singh, Guddu, Kartar Singh, Hori Lal, Charan Singh alias Lohre, Om Prakash, Mukesh, Raju, Raghuveer, Mahesh, vide order dated 08.12.2015. In addition to aforesaid offences, cognizance as against accused Mukesh was also taken for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Thereafter, he committed the case to the Court of Session Judge, Bharatpur. 4. After committal of the case, the matter was fixed before the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, on 21.12.2015. On that date, an application was submitted by the complainant under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for summoning five more accused persons including the petitioners, who were left out by the police during investigation. On 01.02.2016, the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, ordered the case to be registered and simultaneously, made over trial of the matter to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur. The application filed by the complainant under Section 193 Cr.P.C., as a part of the record, also stood transferred to the said court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the arguments of the parties on the said application and partly allowed the same vide order dated 12.04.2016 and ordered accused-petitioner Shodan Singh and Lakhan to be summoned as additional accused to face trial along-with other accused-persons. However, the application was rejected qua Bhagwan Singh, Harendra Singh and Bhojraj Singh. The accused petitioners, pursuant to order dated 12.04.2016, were arrested by the police and produced before the court below. 5. Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi and Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for accused-petitioners, argued that the police conducted independent and impartial investigation in the matter and found involvement of only Kartar Singh, Guddu, Hari Lal, Mukesh and Khajan Singh, who were not named in the FIR No.243/2015, and arrested them. 5. Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi and Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for accused-petitioners, argued that the police conducted independent and impartial investigation in the matter and found involvement of only Kartar Singh, Guddu, Hari Lal, Mukesh and Khajan Singh, who were not named in the FIR No.243/2015, and arrested them. However, the police did not find involvement of Lakhan Ram, petitioner Shodan Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Harendra Singh and Bhojraj Singh, proved in the incident. During investigation, the police recorded statements of number of independent witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., namely; Shibbo S/o Shri Mabasi, Mahtab Singh S/o Ram Saran, Rajjo alias Rajendra S/o Shri Rathram, Hari Singh S/o Shri Rajjo, Pritam S/o Shri Bhajan Lal, Shyma Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Rambabu S/o Shri Ramchand, Lakhan Singh s/o Shri Rohit Singh, Shishu Pal S/o Shri Ramsaran and Guddu alias Raghubir. All of them stated that Mukesh fired at Rakesh resulting into his death on the spot. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant did not file any protest petition before the Magistrate taking cognizance. As the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the same to the Court of Sessions, Bharatpur, where complainant filed an application under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C., for arraying five accused persons left out by the police. Power under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for adding any accused not charge-sheeted by the police can be exercised only by the Sessions Court having the original criminal jurisdiction. Learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, did not pass any order on that application and transferred the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur, on 01.02.2016. The application submitted by the complainant came up for hearing before the trial court and a specific objection was raised on behalf of the accused that the court to whom case has been transferred under Section 193 read with Section 400 of the Cr.P.C., is not competent to decide application under Section 193 Cr.P.C., exercising original criminal jurisdiction, as the Code of Criminal Procedure has not conferred this power on the Additional Sessions Judge exercising jurisdiction at the Headquarter of the Sessions Division. Specific conferment of power is necessary whenever Additional Sessions Judge exercises his jurisdiction in Sessions Division and those posted at the Headquarters are not entitled to invoke jurisdiction under Section 193 Cr.P.C. Such specific conferment of the power is necessary as was done by the local amendment made by the State of Orissa, amending Section 9, by the Act No.6 of 2004, and by the State of West Bengal by making provision in sub-section 3 of Section 9, by the Act No.24 of 1988. The State of Rajasthan has not conferred any such power on the Additional Sessions Judge appointed under Section 9(3) of the Cr.P.C. posted at the Headquarters of the Sessions Division. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, was appointed by the High Court as such to exercise jurisdiction in Sessions Division Bharatpur. No notification of the State government has been issued conferring any such power on the Additional Sessions Judge enabling him to exercise power of original criminal jurisdiction as Sessions Judge. Assumption of jurisdiction after the case was handed over to him under Section 194 Cr.P.C. for trial and disposal is wholly illegal. The impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bharatpur, is therefore, without jurisdiction. Reliance in support of this argument is placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharam Pal Singh v. State of Haryana – (2014) 3 SCC 306 . 7. Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi, learned counsel, submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur, while exercising the power under Section 193 Cr.P.C., has committed error at the stage of Section 194 Cr.P.C. to upturn the conclusion drawn by the investigating agency while filing charge-sheet. According to the complaint, the common object of the unlawful assembly was to encircle Rakesh and in furtherance of that common object, Lakhan caught hold of Rakesh and Shodan Singh fired at his chest, but this has been disbelieved by the investigating agency on the basis of factual report and postmortem report of the deceased. Rakesh sustained injuries on his back and bullet made exit from the side of the chest. The version of the F.I.R. was thus found false. According to the investigating agency, the occurrence took place in retaliation of an earlier incident, which took place in the Government school on 15.08.2015. Learned counsel argued that the police on thorough investigation found involvement of five innocent persons including the petitioner false. The version of the F.I.R. was thus found false. According to the investigating agency, the occurrence took place in retaliation of an earlier incident, which took place in the Government school on 15.08.2015. Learned counsel argued that the police on thorough investigation found involvement of five innocent persons including the petitioner false. These five persons were not named in the F.I.R., and only five persons, who were named in the F.I.R., were, according to the investigating agency, found involved in the crime. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has not given any reason for disbelieving the statement of independent prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who stated that in fact fire was opened by Mukesh and that fire hit at the back of Rakesh. The 'katta' recovered at the instance of Mukesh was found serviceable and was, as per the F.S.L. Report, found to have been used for firing. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court has placed too much reliance on the statements of interested witnesses, who in fact were themselves members of unlawful assembly to take revenge in retaliation of the incident which took place on 15.08.2015. It is argued that at the stage of Section 193 Cr.P.C., the Court is only required to see whether grounds exist to proceed in the case against the accused, not charge-sheeted by the police. At that stage, the Court of Sessions is not entitled to evaluation the pros and cons of the case and after analysis, it can exercise power under Section 193 Cr.P.C. Thus, it could do so only at the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. as contemplated by the legislature. Learned Additional Sessions Judge exceeded his jurisdiction in summoning the accused-petitioners, whose involvement was found false by the police after investigation. The statement of witnesses, who were members of unlawful assembly and who proceeded to the house of Raju to take revenge and against whom F.I.R. No.245/2015 is pending investigation, could not have been relied. 9. Per contra, Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as provided under Section 9 of the Cr.P.C., there has to be a court of Sessions for every Sessions Division. Section 9(6) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the Court of Sessions shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification, specify. Per contra, Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that as provided under Section 9 of the Cr.P.C., there has to be a court of Sessions for every Sessions Division. Section 9(6) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the Court of Sessions shall ordinarily hold its sitting at such place or places as the High Court may, by notification, specify. It is thus evident from language of Section 9 of the Cr.P.C. read with provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P.C. pertaining to cases triable by the Court of Sessions that all Additional Sessions Judges in a Sessions Division, can also exercise jurisdiction as a Court of Sessions in their area. If the argument that the Additional Sessions Judge cannot exercise the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions with reference to Section 193 Cr.P.C. is accepted, that would render the very office of Additional District Judge meaningless. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, in support of his argument, relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Abdul Mannan and Others v. State of West Bengal – (1996) 1 SCC 665 . Learned Additional Advocate General also relied on judgment of Gauhati High Court in Subrata Pal v. Ratna Gope and Another – 2003 (1) ALT Cri. 14. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in a subsequent judgment in Bhuban Chandra Sharma v. The State of Meghalaya – 2007 Cri.L.J. 3315, and Delhi High Court in Avinash Chander v. The State – 1983 Cri.L.J. 595. 10. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, further argued that the Additional Sessions Judge is fully competent to exercise the powers conferred under Section 193 Cr.P.C., which only puts a bar to the effect that a 'Court of Sessions' shall not take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction, unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. Cumulative reading of all the provisions of the Code leaves no manner of doubt that the Additional Sessions Judge in a Sessions Division also exercises jurisdiction of a court of Sessions. It is argued that the Additional Sessions Judge, while summoning the petitioners as accused, has not taken cognizance of the offence second time. It is argued that the Additional Sessions Judge, while summoning the petitioners as accused, has not taken cognizance of the offence second time. The Additional Sessions Judge, after considering material on record as also rival submissions, thought it proper to summon the accused-petitioners as additional accused, to be tried along with other co-accused, by invoking Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. The cognizance of the offence with regard to present petitioners was not taken by learned Magistrate earlier qua them and the same was taken for the first time by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur. Relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharampal, supra, especially the observations in para 40 of the report, learned Additional Advocate General argued that upon committal of a case to it, the Additional Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences of the persons not named as offenders whose complicity in the case becomes evident from the materials available on record as the Court of original jurisdiction, and may summon those persons even without recording evidence upon committal under Section 209 Cr.P.C., to face trial along-with those already named therein. 11. Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, further argued that the Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order, without prejudice to his powers and jurisdiction under Section 193 Cr.P.C., was also justified in exercising revisional jurisdiction vested in it by virtue of Section 397 Cr.P.C., suo motu upon considering the arguments raised before him by learned counsel for complainant that the learned Magistrate has erred in not summoning the accused-petitioners despite sufficient material on record. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balveer Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Another – (2016) 6 SCC 680 . It is argued that there was ample evidence on record against accused-petitioners to justify their summoning as additional accused. In the earliest version disclosed in the FIR lodged by Daya Chand on the same day without any delay, on the basis of 'parcha bayan' given to Padam Singh, ASI, in R.B.M. Hospital, Bharatpur, names of the petitioners and their specific overt acts were clearly mentioned. During the course of investigation also, witnesses Daya Chand, Tejpal, Charan Singh, Dinesh Singh, Prabhu and Virendra Singh have in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically stated about active role of the accused-petitioners in the incident. During the course of investigation also, witnesses Daya Chand, Tejpal, Charan Singh, Dinesh Singh, Prabhu and Virendra Singh have in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. categorically stated about active role of the accused-petitioners in the incident. There was thus prima facie case of summoning the accused-petitioners by the learned Sessions Judge. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions, perused the material on record and also studied the cited judgments. 13. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the State Government to establish a Court of Session for every sessions division and Sub-section (2) thereof requires that every Court of Session shall be presided over by a presiding officer to be appointed by the High Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 9 provides that the High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judge and/or Assistant Sessions Judge to exercise jurisdiction in the Court of Session. Sub-section (4) of Section 9 empowers the High Court to appoint Sessions Judge of one sessions to be also an Additional Sessions Judge of another division. Sub-section (5) of Section 9 empowers the High Court to make arrangements for the disposal of any urgent application where the office of the Sessions Judge is vacant, which may be made or pending before such court of Session by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge, or where there is no Additional Sessions Judge, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the sessions divisions and every such Judge or Magistrate shall have jurisdiction to deal with any such application. Thus, the scheme envisaged in Section 9 of the Cr.P.C. in this respect makes it clear that even an Additional Sessions Judge, while exercising jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, within a sessions division, exercises the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions. When a Sessions Judge presides over a court of Sessions, the Additional Sessions Judge working in his sessions division cannot be regarded as a Sessions Judge. But the Additional Sessions Judge may within his jurisdiction exercise the power of a Court of Sessions for this limited purpose. Therefore, his court can also, confined to his jurisdiction, be regarded to fall within the purview of expression "the Court of Sessions". But the Additional Sessions Judge may within his jurisdiction exercise the power of a Court of Sessions for this limited purpose. Therefore, his court can also, confined to his jurisdiction, be regarded to fall within the purview of expression "the Court of Sessions". This is further evident from Section 381 of the Cr.P.C., which in its sub-section (1) provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), an appeal to the Court of Session or Sessions Judge shall be heard by the Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that an Additional Sessions Judge shall hear such appeals as the Sessions Judge of the division as may, by general or special order, make over to him or as the High Court may, by special order, direct him to hear. 14. The Supreme Court in Abdul Mannan and Others v. State of West Bengal – (1996) 1 SCC 665 , while interpreting the provisions of Section 9(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C., held that the Additional Sessions Judge may be appointed by the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Sessions. Sessions Judge would include Additional Sessions Judge under the Code, therefore, he gets all the power and the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to try the offences enumerated under the Code. Following observations of the Supreme Court are worth quoting:- "Contention was raised in the courts below that the Additional Sessions Judge is not a Sessions Judge and that, therefore, he could not proceed with the trial. The contention was rejected and thus this appeal by special leave against the impugned order dated January 11, 1989. Section 9(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Act 21 of 1974] [for short, "the Code"] enjoins the State Governments to establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. It is made clear by sub-section [3] of Section 9 which provides that Additional Sessions Judges may be appointed by the High Court to exercise jurisdiction in a Court of Session. Singular includes plural. Sessions Judge would include Additional Sessions Judge under the Code. Therefore, he gets all the power and the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to try the offences enumerated under the Code....." 15. Singular includes plural. Sessions Judge would include Additional Sessions Judge under the Code. Therefore, he gets all the power and the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to try the offences enumerated under the Code....." 15. The Gauhati High Court in a subsequent judgment in Subrata Pal, supra, dealt upon the scope of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed thus:- "A question has been raised from the Bar as to whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge -could file the petition direct to the High Court seeking withdrawal of the case from his file having by-passed the learned Sessions Judge of the Session Division. To resolve this question, it is pertinent to decide whether a learned Additional Sessions Judge holds a court separate from and Independent of the court of learned Sessions Judge ? In this respect, provision of Section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be examined. The related parts of Section 9 of the Cr PC are quoted below :- "9. Court of Session. - (1) The State Government shall establish a Court of Session for every sessions division. (2) Every Court of Session shall be presided over by a Judge, to be appointed by the High Court. (3) The High Court may also appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise Jurisdiction in a Court of Session, (underline emphasised) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" From the aforequoted statutory provisions, it remains settled that in a "sessions division" there shall be one Court of Session. For the aforesaid reason, the Parliament deliberately put the article "a" before "Court of Sessions" in Section 9(1) of the CrPC. As such in my considered opinion, there cannot be more than one "Court of Session" in a "Sessions division" in its statutory meaning and that "Court of Session" shall be presided over by A Judge called "the Sessions Judge" to be appointed by the High Court and there may be one or more Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge to exercise jurisdiction in a court of session meaning thereby a "Court of Session" can be presided over by a Sessions Judge or by an Additional Sessions Judge or an Assistant Sessions Judge as the case may be. Sitting arrangement and venue of the court may be separately situated but that is an integral part of the sessions Division. Sitting arrangement and venue of the court may be separately situated but that is an integral part of the sessions Division. The Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge as the case may be are holding the courts of Sessions Judge in a sessions division and not of any Independent court of Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge. That could be termed as a "separate Bench" of a sessions division. In a particular station there may be one Sessions Judge with one or wore Additional Sessions Judge and one or more Assistant Sessions Judge. The Additional Sessions Judge or the Assistant Sessions Judge as the case may be, arc holding separate Bench of the same Court of Session in a sessions division, of course, for administrative convenience identification of such courts as court of Additional Sessions Judge and court of Assistant Sessions Judge may be permissible, but not within statutory meaning under Section 9 of the CrPC." 16. Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. provides that except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been "committed to it by a Magistrate under this Code". Section 194 of the Cr.P.C. takes specific care of office of Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge by providing that he "shall try such cases as the Sessions Judge of the division may, by general or special order, make over to him for trial or as the High Court may, by special order, direct him to try". A conjoint reading of Sections 193 and 194 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that while there is only one Sessions Judge for a Court of Sessions, in a sessions division, there could be one or more Additional Sessions Judges within a sessions division. What therefore logically follows from this is that an Additional Sessions Judge, exercising the power of Sessions Judge, if a case triable by Court of Sessions has been made over to him for trial by general or special order of Sessions Judge of his sessions division or he has been by special order so directed by the High Court would also be construed as a Court of Sessions in respect of his limited jurisdiction. If therefore a case has been committed by a Magistrate under Section 209 to a Court of Sessions, the Sessions Judge presiding over that Court would be competent to deal with and decide an application under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. It would be therefore equally competent for an Additional Sessions Judge to whom trial of a case has been made over, to issue process against the accused by recourse to Section 193 of the Cr.P.C., who though named in the FIR, was/were not arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet by the police. 17. The Supreme Court in Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar – (1993) 2 SCC 16 , has held that on a plain reading of Section 193 as it presently stands, once the case is committed to the Court of Session by a magistrate under the Code, the restriction placed on the power of the Court of Session to take cognizance of an offence as a court of original jurisdiction gets lifted. On the Magistrate committing the case under Section 209 to the Court of Session the bar of Section 193 is lifted thereby investing the Court of Session complete and unfettered jurisdiction of the Court of original jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence which would include Summoning of the person or persons whose complicity in the commission of the crime can prima facie be gathered from the material available on record. 18. The Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others – (2014) 3 SCC 92 , analysed the law laid down in Dharam Pal, supra, and held that until and unless the case reaches the stage of inquiry or trial by the court, the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised, and that does not seem to have been disturbed by the five-Judge-bench in Dharam Pal, supra. The five-Judge-bench in Dharam Pal, supra, had rightly held that Section 193 Cr.P.C. gives the power of original jurisdiction upon the Sessions court to add the accused once the case is committed to it. After committal, the cognizance of offence can be taken against an accused not named in the FIR as per Section 193 Cr.P.C. but against whom materials are available in the papers sent. After committal, the cognizance of offence can be taken against an accused not named in the FIR as per Section 193 Cr.P.C. but against whom materials are available in the papers sent. The Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh, supra, further held that the Magistrate at the stage of Sections 207 to 209 Cr.P.C. is forbidden, by express provision of Section 319 Cr.P.C., to apply his mind to the merits of the case and determine as to whether any accused needs to be added or subtracted to face trial before the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions is empowered on committal under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. to proceed against such person not named as accused and issue summons against him under Section 193 Cr.P.C., without resorting to the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court has jurisdiction on committal to take cognizance of the offence as offender in the case as evident from the material available on record. 19. In Dharam Pal, supra, an FIR was registered against one N and the appellants for commission of offence under Section 307 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The police after investigation submitted its report under Section 173(2) of the Code before the Magistrate sending only N for trial while including the names of the appellants in Column 2 of the report. On receipt of such police report, the Magistrate did not, straightaway, commit the case to the Sessions Court but, on an objection being raised by the complainant, issued summons to the appellants therein to face trial with the other accused N as the Magistrate was convinced that a prima facie case to go for trial had been made out against the appellants as well. While doing so, the Magistrate did not hold any further inquiry, as contemplated under Sections 190, 200 or even 202 of the Code, but proceeded to issue summons on the basis of the police report only. In this background, the following questions arose for the consideration by the Constitution Bench: "7.1 Does the Committing Magistrate have any other role to play after committing the case to the Court of Session on finding from the police report that the case was triable by the Court of Session? In this background, the following questions arose for the consideration by the Constitution Bench: "7.1 Does the Committing Magistrate have any other role to play after committing the case to the Court of Session on finding from the police report that the case was triable by the Court of Session? 7.2 If the Magistrate disagrees with the police report and is convinced that a case had also been made out for trial against the persons who had been placed in column 2 of the report, does he have the jurisdiction to issue summons against them also in order to include their names, along with Nafe Singh, to stand trial in connection with the case made out in the police report? 7.3 Having decided to issue summons against the appellants, was the Magistrate required to follow the procedure of a complaint case and to take evidence before committing them to the Court of Session to stand trial or whether he was justified in issuing summons against them without following such procedure? 7.4 Can the Sessions Judge issue summons under Section 193 CrPC as a court of original jurisdiction? 7.5 Upon the case being committed to the Court of Session, could the Sessions Judge issue summons separately under Section 193 of the Code or would he have to wait till the stage under Section 319 of the Code was reached in order to take recourse thereto? 7.6 Was Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1998) 7 SCC 149 , which set aside the decision in Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar, (1993) 2 SCC 16 , rightly decided or not?" 20. In those facts, the Supreme Court in Dharam Pal, supra, held that in the event a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and then commits the case to the Court of Session, the question of taking fresh cognizance of the offence and, thereafter, proceed to issue summons, is not in accordance with law. The language of Section 193 of the Code very clearly indicates that once the case is committed to the Court of Session by the learned Magistrate, the Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction and all that goes with the assumption of such jurisdiction. The language of Section 193 of the Code very clearly indicates that once the case is committed to the Court of Session by the learned Magistrate, the Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction and all that goes with the assumption of such jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 209 will, therefore, have to be understood as the learned Magistrate playing a passive role in committing the case to the Court of Session on finding from the police report that the case was triable by the Court of Session. 21. The Supreme Court in Balveer Singh and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Another – (2016) 6 SCC 680 , was dealing with a case where charge-sheet was filed by the police against husband-A, in which the accused-appellants were parents of A, who was married to R. It so happened that R was found dead within ten months of the wedding. The cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. An FIR was lodged by father of deceased alleging that R was done to death by A as well his parents for not satiating their dowry demands. The police in that case filed challan against the husband for offence under Section 306 of the IPC for abetting the suicide committed by R, and concluded that no offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC was made out. When the charge-sheet was filed by the police before the Magistrate, the application for taking cognizance against parents and husband A for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC was filed. The application was dismissed by the Magistrate. Thereafter when the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, the complainant preferred a similar application again, which was allowed by the Sessions Court, who took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and in the alternative, for offence under Section 306 IPC, against the appellants and their son. The High Court in Miscellaneous Petition filed by the accused-appellants, remanded the matter back to the Court of Sessions. After hearing the accused-appellants, the Sessions Court again passed the order taking cognizance against the accused-appellants and their son, which order was challenged by the accused-appellants in revision petition filed before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, therefore, the appeal (with leave) was filed before the Supreme Court. After hearing the accused-appellants, the Sessions Court again passed the order taking cognizance against the accused-appellants and their son, which order was challenged by the accused-appellants in revision petition filed before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision petition, therefore, the appeal (with leave) was filed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in that case analysed the law laid down by its Constitution Bench in Dharam Pal and Others v. State of Haryana and Another – (2014) 3 SCC 306 , with regard to Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. and held that this provision empowers the Court of Session to take cognizance of offences and states that the Court of Session shall not take cognizance of any offence as the Court of original jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by the Magistrate under this Code. As per this Section, the Court of Session can take cognizance only after the case has been committed to it by the Magistrate. However, once the case is committed to it by the Magistrate, the Court of Session is empowered to take cognizance acting 'as a Court of original jurisdiction'. Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance of any offence, which gives an impression that such Magistrate can take cognizance even of an offence which is triable by the Court of Session. On the other hand, when the case is committed to the Court of Session by the Magistrate, Section 193 of the Code stipulates that Court of Session shall take cognizance as a Court of original jurisdiction, which would imply that the cognizance is taken by the Court of Session as a Court of original jurisdiction. 22. The Supreme Court in Balveer Singh, supra, revisited the Constitution Bench judgment in Dharam Pal, supra, and noted that the Magistrate, while rejecting the application, filed by the complainant to array the appellants as accused in the case, after due application of mind, took cognizance of the alleged offence confined to the son of the appellant. This order attained finality as it was not challenged. Argument before the Supreme Court was that the position would have been different if the Magistrate had simply forwarded the application of the complainant to the Court of Sessions while committing the case. This order attained finality as it was not challenged. Argument before the Supreme Court was that the position would have been different if the Magistrate had simply forwarded the application of the complainant to the Court of Sessions while committing the case. Repelling the argument, the Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance against the appellant was revisable. The Court of Sessions was thus not powerless to pass order in its revisonary jurisdiction either at the instance of complainant or on its own. Things would have been different had the Sessions Judge passed the order taking cognizance without affording opportunity to the accused appellants. However, proper opportunity was given to the appellant, who had filed reply to the application of the complainant and Sessions Judge had also heard their arguments. The Supreme Court therefore refused to interfere with the order. 23. As would be seen from above facts, the Supreme Court in Balveer Singh, supra, saved the order of cognizance taken by the court of Sessions against the appellants before it, despite rejection of similar application by the Magistrate, on the analogy that the order passed by the Magistrate was revisable and the Court of Sessions was not powerless to invoke its revisionary jurisdiction either at the instance of the complainant or on its own, particularly when it passed such order after affording opportunity of hearing to the accused-appellant. The order passed by the Court of Sessions was thus deemed to have been passed by the Court of Sessions invoking its revisionary jurisdiction and was held to relate to the order taking cognizance originally passed by the Magistrate against the son of the appellant. 24. In the present case, no such situation can be envisaged for two reasons; firstly, because when the order of cognizance was taken by the Magistrate against five accused, with regard to whom the charge-sheet was originally filed by the Investigating Officer, neither the Magistrate invoked his suo motu jurisdiction of taking cognizance against those not charge-sheeted nor complainant exercised his right by moving any application under Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at that stage, praying for taking cognizance also against them. The Magistrate while playing active role took cognizance only against five accused and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Magistrate while playing active role took cognizance only against five accused and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. It is then only there that the complainant filed the application under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C., which application, when the case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for trial, stood transferred along-with the entire record to him. The position would have been entirely different if the Magistrate had not taken cognizance and then committed the matter to the Court of Sessions by playing a passive role and thereafter the court of Sessions would have transferred the matter for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge. In that situation, it would be fully competent for the Additional Sessions Judge to take cognizance not only against those charge-sheeted by the police but also against such number of additional accused, on the basis of application filed by the complainant invoking Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. simultaneously therewith as he deemed fit. As held by the Supreme Court in Kishun Singh, supra, that the Sessions Court has jurisdiction, on committal of case to it, to take cognizance of offence against those named in column 2 as offender, whose complicity in the crime comes to the light from the material came on record. On committal, the restriction on the Court of Sessions to take cognizance of the offence as a court of original jurisdiction gets lifted. 25. Cognizance is taken of offence and not offender. Even though the expression 'take cognizance' is not defined, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that when the Magistrate takes notice of the accusations and applies his mind to the allegations made in the complaint or police report or information and on being satisfied that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence decides to initiate judicial proceedings against the alleged offender, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence. It is essential to bear in mind the fact that cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender. It is essential to bear in mind the fact that cognizance is in regard to the offence and not the offender. In these circumstances, had the court of Additional Sessions Judge in the present case taken cognizance of the offence against the two sets of accused at one go, he would have been acting within his jurisdiction by legitimately exercising the power of the Court of Sessions in his area as court of original jurisdiction by invoking Section 190 as well as 193 of the Cr.P.C. But here the cognizance of the offence had already been taken by the Magistrate, therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in Dharampal, supra, it was not permissible for him to take cognizance of the matter again by invoking Section 193 of the Code. It would be, at this stage, pertinent to extract para 39 of the report in Dharampal, supra, which reads as under:- "39. This takes us to the next question as to whether under Section 209, the Magistrate was required to take cognizance of the offence before committing the case to the Court of Session. It is well settled that cognizance of an offence can only be taken once. In the event, a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and then commits the case to the Court of Session, the question of taking fresh cognizance of the offence and, thereafter, proceed to issue summons, is not in accordance with law. If cognizance is to be taken of the offence, it could be taken either by the Magistrate or by the Court of Session. The language of Section 193 of the Code very clearly indicates that once the case is committed to the Court of Session by the learned Magistrate, the Court of Session assumes original jurisdiction and all that goes with the assumption of such jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 209 will, therefore, have to be understood as the learned Magistrate playing a passive role in committing the case to the Court of Session on finding from the police report that the case was triable by the Court of Session. Nor can there by any question of part cognizance being taken by the Magistrate and part cognizance being taken by the learned Session Judge." 26. Nor can there by any question of part cognizance being taken by the Magistrate and part cognizance being taken by the learned Session Judge." 26. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharampal, supra, when applied to the facts of the present case, would lead to this that cognizance here has been taken once by the Magistrate and thereafter, by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, which would therefore tantamount to taking cognizance of the same offence(s) twice by two courts at different stages. The Additional Sessions Judge has thus by the impugned order taken fresh cognizance of the offence(s) of which cognizance had already been taken by the Magistrate. Such a course cannot be held in accordance with law. No doubt, on committal of the case by the Magistrate to the Court of Sessions with reference to Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the restrictions on the power of the Court of Sessions, including that of the Additional Sessions Judge in the present case, would get lifted as in that event the Court of Sessions/Additional Sessions Judge would exercise such power as a court of original jurisdiction. But a conjoint reading of Sections 193 and 209 of the Cr.P.C., would make it clear that the situation where part cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and part by the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be held to be legally permissible. This, however, would not create any difficulty for the Additional Sessions Judge in invoking Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. at the appropriate stage after statements of the prosecution witnesses are recorded, if still evidence surfaces against the petitioner in their statements, to issue process against them and make them join trial along-with other accused. 27. In view of the above, this petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur, is quashed and set aside with the afore-made observations.