1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.94 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby the trial court took cognizance for offence under Section 406 I.RC. against the petitioner.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned carefully.

3. The trial court on perusal of statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.RC. namely Harbanslal and Madho Singh and other material, came to conclusion that prima facie offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. By a detailed order, the trial court took cognizance of offence noticed above against the petitioner. The order taking cognizance is revisable.

4. A Division Bench of this Court in Sessions Judge Sawai Madhopur v. Dashrath Singh, 1996 Rajasthan Criminal Cases, 592 , held that the order taking cognizance is an intermediary order, but positively not an interlocutory order and that against such order a revision petition is maintainable under Section 397(2) Cr.RC.

5. In State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Ors., 1988(4) SCC 655 , the Hon'ble Supreme court