ORDER

1. THIS CASE WAS DIRECTED TO BE HEARD BY A THREE-JUDGE BENCH IN VIEW OF THE CONFLICT OF OPINION IN THE DECISIONS OF TWO-JUDGE BENCH IN THE CASES OF KISHORI SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR1, RAJINDER PRASAD V. BASHIR2 AND SWIL LTD. V. STATE OF DELHI3.

2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES HAVE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TWO OTHER DECISIONS WHICH HAVE A DIRECT BEARING ON THE QUESTION SOUGHT TO BE DETERMINED. FIRST IS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KISHUN SINGH V. STATE OF BIHAR4. THE OTHER IS A THREE-JUDGE BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF RANJIT SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB5. RANJIT SINGH CASES HAS DISAPPROVED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN KISHUN SINGH CASE4 WHICH ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SESSIONS COURT HAS POWER UNDER SECTION 193 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (FOR SHORT THE CODE) TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE AND SUMMON OTHER PERSONS WHOSE COMPLICITY IN THE COMMISSION OF THE TRIAL CAN PRIMA FACIE BE GATHERED FROM THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE DECISION IN KISHUN SINGH CASE4 THE SESSIONS COURT HAS SUCH A POWER UNDER SECTION 193 OF THE CODE. AS PER RANJIT SINGH CASE5, FROM THE STAGE OF COMMITTAL TILL THE SESSIONS COURT REACHES THE STAGE INDICATED IN SECTION 230 OF THE CODE, THAT