JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated May 4, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision-petition filed by the petitioner and set-side the order taking the cognizance, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, qua the accused-respondents Likma Ram, Kumba Ram, Bhanwara Ram, Birma Ram, Bhanwara Ram S/o Tilok Ram, Himta Ram, Moti Ram and Bagta Ram. 2. Moola Ram, on July 7, 1987, at about 6.00 p.m. lodged a report against Chola Ram and ten others, viz., Likhma Ram, Ghasa Ram, Khumbha Ram, Hanuman Ram, Bhanwara Ram, Birma Ram, Bhanwara Ram S/o Tilok Ram, Himata Ram, Moti Ram and Bagta Ram, at the Police Station, Khinvsar (district Nagaur). On the basis of this report, a case Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 201 and 447 I.P.C. was registered against these accused persons. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan only against accused Jassa Ram and Hanuman Under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323/34 and 447 I.P.C. The police, also, submitted the challan against Chola Ram under these Sections and Under Section 299 I.P.C., also. The police did not find any case against the remaining accused. After the presentation of the challan the complainant filed an application requesting therein that the cognizance may, also, be taken against the remaining accused as there is evidence on record against them, also, on the basis of which they can be tried. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur, by his order dated January 12, 1988, took cognizance against all the accused, named-out in the First Information Report. Dissatisfied with this order taking cognizance, the non-petitioners No. 2 to 9 viz., Likhma Ram, Kumba Ram, Bhanwara Ram, Birma Ram, Bhanwar Ram S/o Tilok Ram, Himata Ram, Moti Ram and Bagta Ram, preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, who, by his order dated May 4, 1988, allowed the revision petition filed by Likma Ram and others and quashed the order dated January 12,1988, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, taking cognizance against these eight accused. It is against this order that the complainant has filed the present revision petition Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. It is against this order that the complainant has filed the present revision petition Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the accused-respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that there was sufficient materials on record, on the basis of which prima facie a case to proceed-with against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 9 was also made-out and the case of the present petitioners is similar to that of the other three co-accused, against whom the cognizance has been taken and he further submitted that at this stage, the meticulous examination of the evidence is not necessary. If a prima facie case is made-out then the Court should proceed against the accused. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioners No. 2 to 9, as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, have supported the order passed by the learned lower Court. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. At the time of taking the cognizance, the Court is only required to see that: Whether there is any evidence available on record, on the basis of which prima facie a case to proceed-with against the accused has been made-out or not. The adequacy of the evidence against these accused persons cannot be assessed at the time of taking the cognizance. That is a matter of trial and the assessment of evidence at this stage is a pre-mature. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, not justified in assessing the evidence at this stage and quashing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance.Consequently, this revision petition, filed by the petitioner-complainant is allowed. The order dated May 4, 1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur, is set-aside and the order dated January 12,1988, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagaur, taking cognizance against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 9 is restored.Petition allowed. *******