Judgment J. N. Dubey, J. 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 20-3-1986 of the Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Barh taking cognizance under Sec.324/307, I. P. C. and section 3/5 of Explosive Substances Act. 2. It appears that one Ram Dular nunia lodged a F. I. R. at P. S. Barh on 3-8-1980 stating that the applicant trad caused serious injuries to his brother ram Das Sah on that day at about 10 a. M. by throwing a bomb on him. The police started investigation into the case but did not submit final form for more than three years and accordingly, the proceedings against the applicant were closed by the Court below on 19-11-1983. However, on 20-3-1986, it took cognizance against the applicant under section 324/307, I. P. C. and section 3/5 of explosive Substances Act. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed this revision. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order of the Court below amounts to review of its earlier order closing the proceedings against the applicant, which is not legally permissible. He further contended that no cognizance of the case could legally be taken on the basis of carbon copy of the charge-sheet in absence of any proof or loss of the original. 5. I find substance in the argument of the learned Counse The court below does not possess any power of review and, as such, irrespective of the merit of the original order, it could not be legally set aside by it. Similarly, the secondary evidence can be led only under certain conditions specified under Sec.65 of the Indian Evidence Act. No such condition existed in this case and, as such, no cognizance could legally be taken against the applicant on the basis of carbon copy of the case diary. 6. Mr. this view finds support from a Division Bench decision of this Court in Rameshwar Singh and others V/s. The state of Bihar (1986 PLJR NOC 29 ). In that case, carbon copies of the F. I. R. and entries of the station diary were produced before the trial court without providing loss of the original documents. The Division Bench held that in absence of proof of loss of the original documents, carbon copies could not be legally relied upon. 7. In that case, carbon copies of the F. I. R. and entries of the station diary were produced before the trial court without providing loss of the original documents. The Division Bench held that in absence of proof of loss of the original documents, carbon copies could not be legally relied upon. 7. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20-3-1986 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, taking cognizance against the applicant, is set-aside. Revision Allowed.