JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the non-petitioner. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated April 24, 1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar in Criminal Revision No. NIL/91, whereby the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance was set-aside. 3. The facts of the case are that a report was made at Police Station on 20.11.89. On the report, crime No. 221/89 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 379 I. P. C. It further appears that on X-ray examination some of the injuries were found to be grevious in nature. However, the Police submitted a negative report, which is properly known as 'Final Report', against the accused persons. Learned Magistrate not agreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the Police, took cognizance against the petitioner after being satisfied that there was ground to proceed against them under various offences which have been given out in the order taking cognizance, dated 12.11.1993. 4. Against that order, the accused persons went in revision and the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar (Camp at Laxmangarh) allowed the revision petition filed by the accused persons and the order taking cognizance was set-aside. 5. After going through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I am convinced that the view taken by him is wholly erroneous in law. The view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the cognizance could have been taken against the accused only under Section 326 after recording evidence, is erroneous in law. Whenever a final report is made to the concerned Magistrate, the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance dis-agreeing with the Final Report. If there was some material to proceed against the accused, then there is no error of law if cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. 6. Consequently, I allow this petition. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar is set-aside and the order of the learned Magistrate is restored. However, it is made clear that the accused persons will have full opportunity to make their submissions to satisfy the concerned court at the stage of framing of charges that no prima facie case was made out against them to frame charges.Revisions petition allowed. *******