ORDER : This Revision petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Sessions Case No.222/2015 dated 03.10.2018 wherein, the learned Trial Judge issued summons to the petitioners to implead them as additional accused as accused Nos.3 to 5 on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the arguments of both the counsels. 3. Before adverting to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the High Court Government Pleader, it is required to mention the factual matrix of the case as under: PW.1M.K.Manjula, wife of Jagadish, lodged a complaint to the Konanur, Arakalagud Taluk Police on 27.11.2014 alleging that on 26.11.2014, her husband along with her brother-in-law Eeregowda went to the land at 7 a.m. and came back at 6 p.m. After they returned to home, her husband went to the house of Kakagodanahalli Krishnegowda to get drip tube pipes, but he did not return back throughout the night. Then on 27.11.2014, at about 11 AM, when her brother-in-law Eeregowda was working in the land, one KenchappaCW.17 came and informed to her brother-in-law that somebody has murdered her husband and thrown the bike on his head. Then she rushed to the spot and saw that somebody has committed the murder by strangulating her husband with a rope and she has stated that there was dispute between her elder brother and his wife, which is pending in the Family Court. Her husband is required to attend the Court in support of her brother, therefore, she suspected that the brother-in-law of her elder brother Kumar-Accused No.4, Harish-Accused No.5 who is petitioner No.2 herein might have committed murder of her husband. 4. Based upon the complaint, the Police filed the FIR against five persons. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer deleted the names of the accused Nos.3 to 5 i.e., petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and one Kumar-Accused No.4 from the charge sheet and filed the charge sheet only against accused No.1Paramesh alias Shivamurthy and accused No.2Paramesh alias Parmi. After taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the Trial Court issued summons to the petitioners and accused No.4 and impleaded them as accused Nos. 3 to 5 on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the State. After taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate, the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the Trial Court issued summons to the petitioners and accused No.4 and impleaded them as accused Nos. 3 to 5 on the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the State. Being aggrieved by the same, both these petitioners have challenged the order by filing the Crl.R.P.No.1045/2017 c/w Crl.R.P.No.1055/2017 on the ground that no notice has been issued to the petitioners before impleading them as additional accused. This Court allowed those petitions vide order dated 10.11.2017 and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration after issuing notice to the petitioners and after hearing them and to dispose of the application. After remand of the matter, the learned Trial Judge issued notice to these petitioners and petitioners also appeared before the Court and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the prosecution, the Trial Judge passed the impugned order on 03.10.2018, which is under challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners seriously argued that the order under revision is manifestly erroneous. The entire material adduced by the complainant in the examination-in-chief of PW.1 alone is not an evidence. As per her evidence, these petitioners were said to have confessed before the Police that accused No.4 gave supari of Rs.10 lakh to accused Nos.1 and 2 for killing her husband. The statement made before the Investigating Officer by the accused while in the custody is not admissible in evidence. There is no material against these petitioners, therefore the Investigating Officer dropped them from the charges. The Court below, without following the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down in the case of Hardeep Singh v/s State of Punjab and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92 , has summoned the petitioners, which is erroneous and illegal and hence, prayed for setting aside the same. 6. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that previously though the complainant suspected these petitioners and FIR was lodged against them, but the Investigating Officer has dropped them from the charges and after recording the evidence of PW1, the complainant, the prosecution filed an application for impleading them as additional accused. The learned Trial Judge, after considering the documents on record, passed the order and rightly impleaded them as co-accused and issued summons. The learned Trial Judge, after considering the documents on record, passed the order and rightly impleaded them as co-accused and issued summons. Therefore, there is no error or illegality committed by the Trial Court to set aside the same. Hence, he prayed for dismissing the Revision Petition. 7. Before discussing the case on hand, it is worth to mention the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) with regard to what are the tests to be applied by the Court while dealing with the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., which are as follows: “105. Power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the Court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of crossexamination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure. In Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” 8. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.” 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that in order to exercise the power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C, the Court shall consider the substance of the evidence, which has come before it. The test that has to be applied is one which is “more than prima-facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction.” In the absence of such satisfaction, the Court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. The same ratio has been followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a subsequent judgment in the case of Sunil Kumar Gupta and others v/s State of Uttar Pradesh and others in Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.4626 of 2017) and connected with Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4560 of 2017 dated 27.02.2019. 9. Keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said case, now coming to the case on hand which reveals the Police registered the FIR against five accused persons including these petitioners, later in the charge sheet, the names of these petitioners were dropped and charge sheet was filed only against two accused persons. After the committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charges and posted the case for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution also examined PW.1Manjula, wife of the deceased during the examination-in-chief she has stated that police willfully deleted the name of the accused Nos.3 to 5 even though the accused themselves confessed before the police about murdering her husband at the instance of these three accused persons, at that stage, further examination has been deferred by the trial Court at the request of the Public Prosecutor. Subsequently, the Public Prosecutor filed the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. for summoning accused Nos.3 to 5 including these petitioners to add as additional accused holding that there is material placed on record as per the statements of some of the witnesses and as per the evidence of PW.1, the accused have hatched conspiracy with accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused Nos.4 and 5 gave money (supari) to accused No.3 and accused No.3 in turn engaged accused No.1 by paying the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/and accused Nos.1 and 2 in turn committed the murder of the deceased. 10. On perusal of the complaint filed by PW.1Manjula and the evidence recorded by the Trial Court, clearly shows that even the evidence of PW.1, the wife of the deceased, is not yet completed. The other witnesses CW.22Shivanaika, CW.20Harisha and other witnesses have also spoken in their 161 statement made before the Police that, accused Nos.4 and 5 hatched conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased and engaged accused No.3 by giving supari of Rs.10 lakh to commit murder of the deceased. But, the evidence of those witnesses are not yet recorded by the Court, in order to satisfy itself and to add these petitioners are also involved in the offence and to implead in the case. Though their names were initially mentioned in the FIR, but later dropped by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet and the Trial Court also framed the charges only against accused Nos.1 and 2 based upon the same materials already available on record, but after filing of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C by the prosecution, without recording evidence of other witnesses and before completing the entire evidence of PW.1, the Trial Court has hurriedly allowed the application without applying the test of satisfaction, which is required more than the prima facie material for framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if it goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Absolutely, there is no such satisfaction found in the impugned order passed by the Trial Courts, the Trial Court has allowed the application merely on the scanty evidence given by PW.1 even without completion of the entire evidence of PW.1. Absolutely, there is no such satisfaction found in the impugned order passed by the Trial Courts, the Trial Court has allowed the application merely on the scanty evidence given by PW.1 even without completion of the entire evidence of PW.1. The Trial Court could have exercised the said power after recording the evidence of some more witnesses in order to satisfy itself as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hardeep Singh’s case (supra). Admittedly, the evidence of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence. There is no eyewitness to the incident. PW.1 has stated in her evidence that even though the accused themselves confessed before the Investigating Officer that they have given supari to accused No.1 by paying money, but the Investigating Officer dropped them from charge sheet and statement of some of the witnesses though recorded by the Investigating Officer which was also available on record while framing of the charge by the Trial Court. But in order to implead or to add as additional accused, the Court requires some more material, than prima facie material to frame the charge, for the purpose of impleading them as additional accused. Therefore, the Trial Court without applying any such test or yardstick laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court holding that the accused have made conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased by hiring accused No.3 is not correct at that stage. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the material placed on record is not sufficient to have satisfaction to apply the tests as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the order under Revision is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan in Sessions Case No.222/2015 dated 03.10.2018 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C is set aside. The matter is remanded back with a direction to the Trial Judge to record entire evidence of the PW.1 and also to examine any other witnesses to satisfy itself for the purpose of adding the accused as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra).