IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18276 of 2009 ASHARFI RAI SON OF SHIV BALAK RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JURAWANPUR, GOPALPUR, P.S. BIDUPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KALI PRASAD SAH, SON OF LATE KAILU SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JURAWANPUR, GOPALPUR, P.S. BIDUPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI ----------- 2 19.05.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner assails the order taking cognizance dated 25th October, 2008 in Bidupur P.S. Case No. 157 of 2005, whereby cognizance of the offence in question has been taken against the petitioner. The said order taking cognizance was upheld as per the order dated 3rd March, 2009 in Criminal Revision No. 273 of 2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. III, Vaishali at Hajipur. The submission of the petitioner is that the cognizance of the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as also section 27 of the Arms Act could not have been taken for want of any material on the record. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that on perusal of the order in question it would appear that while taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence the Court has considered the materials available in the case diary, seizure list as also other materials i.e. blood stained chowki as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded in the case diary, and as such, it cannot be said that the order has been passed without any material on the record. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the order dated 25th October, 2008 taking cognizance of the offence as also the order whereby the revision application filed by the petitioner was rejected, it would appear that cognizance of the aforesaid offence was taken considering the materials available on record warranting taking of cognizance, and as such, the same cannot be faulted. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)