JUDGMENT 1. - Heard,In this case the occurrence of alleged assault by the petitioner on Pradeep, injured took place on 5.5.94. The injured reported the matter to the police on that date. A case Under section 323, 307 IPC was registered. However, after investigation the police submitted a report Under section 169 Cr.PC. on 19.10.95. In the report it was concluded that the offence committed in that case, was punishable Under section 323 IPC only. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence Under section 325 IPC on 2.11.95 on the basis of the Negative Report, submitted by the police. The petitioner challenged the order of taking cognizance of that offence and summoning him by the Magistrate as an accused thereunder, by preferring Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1067/95 before this court. The said petition was however withdrawn on 24.1.96 and the petitioner was permitted to raise his objection before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner raised his objections before the learned Magistrate who by his impugned order dated 14.5.96 held that offence Under section 323 IPC in prima facie found to have been committed in the present case. He, therefore, directed that the substance of accusation for that offence be read over and explained to the petitioner accordingly. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for offence Under section 323 IPC as the cognizance for that offence had been taken by the Magistrate much after the period of limitation, prescribed Under section 468 Cr.P.C. In support of such contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Sharwan Singh ( AIR 1981 SC 1054 ) . 3. The learned counsel further invited my attention to another order, passed by the learned Magistrate on 27.7.96 whereby he had rejected the objection of the petitioner regarding limitation Under section 468 Cr.RC. 4. It may be mentions that the order, as passed by the learned Magistrate, has already been revised by the learned Sessions Judge Under section 397(1) Cr.RC. vide his order dated 21.9.96. A second revision of the same order is barred Under section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and a petition Under section 482 Cr.RC. cannot be entertained if it seeks revision of the same order of the Magistrate. However, since the learned counsel pressed a legal point. vide his order dated 21.9.96. A second revision of the same order is barred Under section 397(2) Cr.P.C. and a petition Under section 482 Cr.RC. cannot be entertained if it seeks revision of the same order of the Magistrate. However, since the learned counsel pressed a legal point. I entertained the petition and heard him.* 5. The narration of facts discloses that on 2.11.95 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence Under section 325 IPC in the present case and such order passed by the learned Magistrate, had fallen for the examination of this court in Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 1067/95. It may be possible that this court had permitted the petitioner to raise his objections before the learned Magistrate but in any case this court was required to examine the validity and legality of the order, passed by the learned Magistrate, as no revision petition or, for that matter, a petition Under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be dismissed otherwise then by going through the merits of the order. The dismissal of the petition by this court on 24.1.96 would, therefore, tantamount that the order of the learned Magistrate was confirmed and the petitioner was given liberty to advance his arguments at the time of framing of charges. 6. It is surprising that after having adopted the procedure of a warrant case, when after hearing the parties on charge the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the offence made out in the case was triable as a summons case, he shifted to the procedure of a summons case. Once the learned Magistrate had adopted the procedure of warrant case he was required to frame a charge Under section 323 IPC be it an offence, triable as a summons case as the learned Magistrate and already commenced with in the case as a warrant case. It is thus clear that on 1.11.95 the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of an offence Under section 325 IPC which offence incidentally was not found to be prima facie made out at the time of framing of the charge. It is thus clear that on 1.11.95 the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of an offence Under section 325 IPC which offence incidentally was not found to be prima facie made out at the time of framing of the charge. That does not mean that when the Magistrate heard the learned counsel for the petitioner for framing of the charge and came to hold the opinion that the offence, committed, was triable was a summons case, it would divest him of the cognizance of the offence, which he had already taken on 2.11.95 in the case. Once the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of an offence and proceeded with the trial of an accused, the cognizance taken by him cannot be divested only for the reason that the offence made out was a minor offence and at that time the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of such offence. 7. In the cited case the offence Under section 408 IPC was committed on 13.10.96 but the trial court convicted the accused for an offence Under section 406 IPC. The Apex Court pointed out that the chargesheet disclosed the commission of the offence on 22.8.72 and the audit report, through which the offence was detected, was dated 5.1.73. It was on such facts that it was held that when the chargesheet had been submitted in the case, the limitation prescribed Under section 468(2)(c) Cr.RC. had already expired for the offence for which the accused had been convicted. 8. In the present case since the order of taking cognizance stood confirmed by the order of this court, dated 24.1.96, the learned Magistrate could not be said to have been divested of such cognizance when he passed the impugned order, dated 14.5.96. 9. I thus find no case for interference Under section 482 Cr.RC. in the present matter. The petition is dismissed.> Petition dismissed. *******