JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This petitionunder section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order taking cognizance against him and 10 other accused-personsunder section 147, 148, 323, 302/149 IPC. The cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 9.1.91. The revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 28.2.92. 2. The main contention of the learned Counsel is that no prima-facie case is made out against the petitioner from the evidence collected by the Investigating agency and the learned Magistrate has wrongly taken cognizance against the petitioner on the basis of the police papers. The learned Counsel submits that the complainant has named the petitioner in the FIR and the statement, as such, the solitary statement of the complainant should not be made the basis for taking cognizance. Reliance is placed on Gyarsi Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [1987 RLR (2) 802] and Jalam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1984 RLR, 781) . The last judgment has been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge on the point that the cognizance has been taken on a protest petition without recording evidence. 3. In my view, the learned Magistrate was competent to take cognizance on police papersunder section 190-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After the challan is submitted by the police and if sonic persons are left that the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance against them on the police report. So far the judgment of this Court in Jalam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) is concerned, it was with regard to taking cognizanceunder section 319 Cr.P.C. and notunder section 190-B IPC. Even this judgment has been over-ruled by Full Bench of this Court, but unfortunately the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon this judgment. 4. So far the question of prima-facie case is concerned, I think the petitioner shall have an opportunity to make submissions/objections before the Trial Court at the stage of framing the charge/charges and the Trial Court shall be in a better position to consider this aspect as to whether there is prima facie evidence to frame charge/charges or not. Presently, the learned Trial Magistrate has taken cognizance and the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Presently, the learned Trial Magistrate has taken cognizance and the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. After having taken a chance of one revision, I do not think it just and proper that the entire evidence should be re-appreciated and re-considered by this Court in exercise of powersunder section 482 Cr.P.C. specifically when the petitioner will have an opportunity at the stage of framing charge/charges. I am also of the view that the Trial Court at that stage has more powers to consider the evidence than the power which can be exercised by this Courtunder section 482 Cr.P.C. So far the judgment of Jalam Singh (supra) is concerned, it depends on the facts of each case and no judgment can be an authority as to whether any cognizance should be taken or not on the basis of the statement of the complainant. In the instant case as argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there were 35 persons named in the FIR and the police submitted the charge-sheet against 24 persons and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the remaining 11 persons. 5. Consequently, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed as indicated above.Petition dismissed. *******