Short Note : 1. The facts giving rise to this petition of revision are very simple. On 18-2-74, the S. O. Mau, District Bhind, filed, what is called, a charge-sheet in the Court of the Magistrate of the First Class, Gohad, for prosecution of five persons, namely, Gharoandi, Pahalu, Jhagdu, Meghsingh and Gayadin for offences under sections 148, 302 and 302 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon, the learned Committing Magistrate after the necessary preliminaries, posted the case for recording the prosecution evidence on 22-2-74. What transpired on 22-2-74 may be reproduced just as well, its relevant portion a is as below:- ^^iwNus ij ,Œ,eŒihŒ 'kekZ us ÁdV fd;k fd Msfuax fMDysjs'ku esa dsnkj xwtj o cStukFk xwtj ds uke vafdr fd, x, gSA Msfuax fMDysjs'ku eftLVsªV ds lkeus dk gS buds fo:} pkyku is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA Msfuax fMDysjs'ku dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA okLro esa dsnkj o cStukFk ds uke Msfuax fMDysjs'ku esa gSA /kkjk 190 ¼4½ lhvkjŒ ihŒlhŒ ds vaxrZr dk;Zokgh ds fy, ,ŒihŒihŒ buds irs is'k djsaA fnukad 5-3-1974 dks is'k gksA** 2. There was illegibility of the specific provision under which cognizance of the offences was ordered to be taken against Baijnath and Kedar in the order-sheet quoted above as aha the order-sheet dated 5-3-74. Held: What the petitioners have challenged is the order dated 5-3-74, but then on a mere glance at the order sheet dated 5-3-74 would show that it merely gives some more reasons in support of the earlier order dated 22-2-74 with regard to the taking of cognizance of the offences against the petitioners besides reiterating the earlier order. Since, however, there was no challenge to the order dated 22-2-74, no revision would be entertainable against the impugned order dated 5-3-74 which does not decide anything beyond what was decided under the earlier order. At any rate, neither the order dated 22-2-74 nor even the one passed on 5-3-74 suffers from any infirmity as might invite interference in revision. It is wholly incorrect to say that the cognizance was taken of the offences as far as the remaining five accused persons are concerned and not as far as the petitioners are concerned. At any rate, neither the order dated 22-2-74 nor even the one passed on 5-3-74 suffers from any infirmity as might invite interference in revision. It is wholly incorrect to say that the cognizance was taken of the offences as far as the remaining five accused persons are concerned and not as far as the petitioners are concerned. Once cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate he takes the cognizance of an offence and not the offenders; once he takes cognizance of an offence it is his duty to find out who the offenders really are and once he comes to the conclusion that that part from the persons sent by the Police some other persons are involved, it is his duty to proceed against those persons. The sumnoning of the additional accused is part of the proceeding initiated by his taking cognizance of the offence. [See, Raghuvansh Dubey v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1167 ]. It has been laid down in this case that if the initial cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate under section 190 (1) (b) of the Code, his action in summoning the additional accused persons would be referable to his powers under that very provision. Yet, there is another decision on the point, viz. Ramsharansingh v. State of M.P., 1978 MPWN 277 . In so far as the facts of this particular case are concerned it is obvious enough that the dying declaration of the deceased Jairam was not before the police till the challan was filed, as it was kept in a sealed cover. It is only when the learned Committing Magistrate opened the sealed cover that he came to know that the petitioners Baijnath and Kedar were named among the persons responsible for the incident by the deceased Jairam in his dying declaration recorded before a Magistrate. This, according to the learned Committing Magistrate, was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners in the circumstances of this case This would be so even without what has been observed in the order-sheet dated 5-3-74. AIR 1967 SC 1167 and 1978 MPWN Vol. 1 277, relied on Revision dismissed.