JUDGMENT
S.S. Hasan, J.
1. This application is directed against an order of the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, dated 6-6-1977, by which he has summoned the petitioners for trial in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) along with Srichand Mahton. It has been stated that after full investigation the final form was submitted only against Srichand Mahton, who was sent up for trial, protest petition was also filed on behalf of the Complainant which was rejected. After examination of five witnesses and on the application of the prosecution the impugned order was passed. It may be stated that the case was committed on 13-12-1975 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The prosecution case is not being stated as it is not relevant for the purposes of this application.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 319 of the Code which read with Section 193 of the Code will apply only to case triable by a Magistrate and not to case triable by a Sessions Court. In my view, there is no substance in this submission. Sections 193 and 319 of the Code apply to different fields in a proceeding. Section 183 reads as follows:
193. 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.
The aforesaid section bars a Sessions Court from taking cognizance of any offence as a Court of original Jurisdiction unless it is committed to it by a Magistrate under the Code. It, however, makes certain exceptions in regard to other provisions of the Code which expressly provide for such contingency. One of such exceptions is Section 199(2) of the Code. This section relates to cognizance of offence by a Court of Session and does not apply to the stage of trial. Section 319 of the Code applies to trial and is a part of Chapter XXIV which relates to general, provisions as to inquiries and trials. This Chapter covers trials both before a Court of Sessions as well as before a Magistrate. Section 319(1) of the Code reads as follows:
319(1) Where, in the courts of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
The aforesaid section empowers a court which is inquiring or trying an offence to summon for trial along with other accused persons if it appears from the evidence that a person who is not an accused has committed an offence. In my view therefore, the provisions of Section 193 of the Code do not stand in the way of Sessions Judge exercising powers under Section 319(1) of the Code. It has also been submitted that since in various sub-sections of Section 319 of the Code the word ‘Court’ has been used, for example, in Sub-section (1) it is stated “the Court may proceed”, in Sub-section (2) “not attending the Court”, in Sub-section (4)” the Court proceeds against any person and in Sub-section (4)(b), the words “when the Court took cognizance has been used, reading the section as a whole it is clear that the expression “Court” relates to Court taking cognizance only. In my view, this point also has no substance. While in the earlier sub-sections the use of word “Court” indicates a trial Court in Sub-section (4)(b) the word “Court has been qualified with the word “took cognizance”. Undoubtedly, the use of word “Court-in Section 319 of the Code apart from Sub-section (4)(b) means a Court trying an offence irrespective of the fact that it is a Sessions Court or the Court of a Magistrate and the word “Court” in Sub-section (4)(b) means a Magistrate’s Court that took cognizance. The only interpretation is this that once a person is summoned to face a trial under Section 319 of the Code he will be treated to be an accused from the very inception i.e., the stage of cognizance. The word “Court’ in Sub-section (4)(b) of Section 319 of the Code cannot possibly have the same meaning as on the rest of the sections because a Court taking cognizance is not always a trial Court even if a case is being tried by a Magistrate.
3. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in this application and the order of the learned Sessions Judge as it stands is justified in law. In the result, the application is dismissed.