1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R 'Anda Ram & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1113/2006 ... Date of Order: July 24, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Vishal Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr. V.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Pappu Singh for Mr. Anand Purohit, for respondent No.2. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31-8-2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Merta, district Nagaur (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter), whereby the trial Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 427 IPC against the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of filing the Challan, the petitioners were neither informed nor they were present before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial Court fell in error in taking cognizance of the offences without hearing the petitioners. 2 In my view, there is no such provision to hear the accused at the time of taking the cognizance. At the best, the accused can be heard at the time of framing the charges if it is a warrant case. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality in the order impugned. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. The interim order dated 1-2-2007 is vacated. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs