1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Ram Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B.CR. REVISION PETITION NO.595/2006 DATE OF ORDER :: August 17, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.J.R.Beniwal, for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Choudhary, for the respondent No.2. Mr.Narendra Moolchandani, P.P. for the State. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C., accused petitioners have challenged the order dt. 27.5.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh (for short `the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the complainant-non-petitioner No.2 against the order dt. 12.8.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra (for short `the trial court' hereinafter) in FR No.263/2004, was allowed and revisional court took the cognizance of the offences under sections 451, 354, 323 and 2 147 I.P.C. and summoned the accused-petitioners. I have learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the revisional court exceeded its revisional powers in taking the cognizance of the offences triable by the court of Judicial Magistrate. The power of revision of Sessions Judge has been conferred under section 399 Cr.P.C. Section 398 Cr.P.C. provides that on examining any record under section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under section 203 or sub-section (4) of section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge while exercising powers of revision, himself took the cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The offences are 3 obviously not triable by the Sessions Judge, on the contrary, they are triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, in my view, the learned Sessions Judge erred in taking cognizance itself and summoning the accused before the revisional court. In the circumstances, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. Order impugned dt. 27.5.2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the revisional court to pass a fresh order on the revision keeping in view the provisions of sections 398 and 399 Cr.P.C. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-