Short Note : 1. The police investigated the case, got applicant Charanlal, Veernabai and Chetnibai medically examined. Statements of witnesses were recorded by the police and challan was filed only against accused Mahesh and Brijesh on 1974. Private complaint was also filed by the complainant against other accused persons including the two aforesaid accused challaned by the police. 2. Charge was framed against the two accused persons viz., Mahesh and Brijesh under sections 148, 149 and 452, IPC. An application was moved by the police on 5-6-76 that the charge may be amended. This application was allowed and charges were framed against them under sections 148/452, 26/324, 323, 326/149, and 324/149, IPC. 3. Thereafter, the police submitted an application on 28-11-75 to add 9 more accused persons in the challan viz., the present non-applicants No. 1 to 9 and to take cognizance of the offences against them. Under section 190, Cr.P.C. This application was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 22-12-75 and the present non-applicants No. 1 to 9 were added as accused persons. The learned Magistrate ordered that the case be registered against them and also ordered issue of non-bailable warrants. 4. The non-applicants No. 1 to 9 preferred a revision against that order, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, who allowed the same and discharged them. Hence this second revision by the complainant. Held : The learned Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and, after being satisfied prima facie that cognizance of the offences could be taken against the non-applicants No. 1 to 9 also, he passed the necessary order to that effect. It is true that the police moved the application pretty late but, in my opinion, that by itself would not take away the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate to deal with the matter. It appears the State did not think it proper to file any revision against the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but that would not deprive the complainant from filing such application against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Even according to section 173 (8), Cr.P.C., 1973, the police could investigate further in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. Even according to section 173 (8), Cr.P.C., 1973, the police could investigate further in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. According to section 190, Cr.P.C., 1973, cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender and it would ordinarily follow that once a complaint has been made according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance can be taken in respect of the offender named in the complaint and also others who may be shown to have taken part in the transaction although no complaint has been specifically made against them. See Emperor v. Vithu, AIR 1938 Nagpur 133 and Saifar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1962 Calcutta 133. 5. It was urged on behalf of the non applicants No. 1 to 9 that the police could file a supplementary challan against the present non-applicants No. 1 to 9 and that no such supplementary challan having been so filed, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence against them. But it has been held in a reported decision in re Kanhaiyalal Daulatramji, 1965 JLJ 117 , that even if the police did not array others as accused, it was competent for the Magistrate to proceed with the case, once the case is before him, even if the police prays for dropping the whole proceeding against them. 6. In these circumstances in my opinion, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate erred in law in taking cognizance of the offences against the non-applicants No. 1 to 9 and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained, as there was no justification for him, in a revision, to interfere with the said order of the learned Magistrate, AIR 1938 Nag. 133, AIR 1962 Cal. 133 and 1965 JLJ 117 , relied on. Revision allowed.