The timing and articles involved in separate incidents must be considered to determine whether a prima facie case is made out for taking cognizance of offenses.

1. - On September 10, 1982 petitioner Sheopatram filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Hanumangarh against non-petitioner No. 2 Omprakash and five others Under Section s 379, 447 and 147 IPC with the allegations that they had gone to his 'Nohra' and illegally dismantled his 'nohra' on September 9, 1982. That, some of his articles were taken away by the aforesaid persons and some articles were still lying there. That when he had gone to the Police to lodge a complaint against Sheopat Ram and others six persons mentioned in the complaint went to his 'nohra' and forcibly took away the remaining articles mentioned in para 4 of the complaint. The petitioner supported the contention of the complaint by examining himself and witnesses Daulat Singh, Gurucharan Singh and Madan Lal. The learned Magistrate by the order dated October 5, 1982 took cognizance against Om Prakash and five others named in the complaint, Under Section s 379 and 447 IPC.

2. Om Prakash, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate filed revision petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by the order October 18, 1984 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated October 5, 1982 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance as stated earlier.

3. Sheopat Ram feeling dissatisfied by the order of the revisional Court has preferred the revision petition in this court.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemantly argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in error in holding that for the same incident, two complaints have been filed. According to Mr. Sidhu, the times of the two incidents and the articles involved in are different.

5. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 controverted this contention on the ground that when 'Kotha' as alleged in the other Complaint was demolished, the petitioner did not feel content by implicating the employees of the Municipalities only but involved even the persons with whom he felt aggrieved for some reason or other.

6. From the perusal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 18th Oct., 1984 it is evident that the fact that the only point he took into consideration was that if the articles had already been taken away by the Municipal employees against whom another complaint had been lodged, where was the question of these persons taking away any articles lying in the 'Nohara' of the petitioner.

7. The two complaints have been put up before me for my perusal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the time of the two offences is different. One complaint related to the offence committed at about 12.00 noon. The other relates to the after-noon at about 5.00 p m. with the allegation that when the complainant had gone to the Police for lodging information of the first incident and returned therefrom he found the accused of the present petition committing the offence and they had taken the articles which had been left by the accused of the first incident. The complaint related to the two different incidents be that of the same date and place and the articles involved in the both the incidents were different, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have so lightly interfered with the order of the learned Magistrate.

8. At the time of taking cognizance what the Court has to see is whetehr from the material available at that stage a prima facie case is made out or not.

9. In these circumstances, I am constrained to disagree with the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. I therefore, set aside the order dated October 18, 1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar and restore the order dated October, 1982 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Sri Ganganagar and remit the matter to the trial Court for disposal in accordance with law.Revision Accepted.

*******