JUDGMENT 1. - The impugned order dated 15.6.1996 is challenged in this petition which is filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The impugned order of taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 337,338 and 304-A, IPC was revisable. The petitioner instead of filing a revision petition, challenged the aforesaid order by way of filing the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. This petition was filed before this Court on 9.7.1997. The period of limitation for filing the revision petition is 90 days which expired long back. Therefore, it appears that the present petition is filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. The prayer is made orally as well as in the ground of the petition, to convert this petition into a revision petition. As stated earlier, the revision petition has already become time barred, therefore, there is no question of grant of any such permission. It is always open to the petitioner to file revision petition along with an application for condonation of delay, if the revision was time barred. Only thing is that the petitioner has to make out the case for condoning the delay, if it is beyond limitation. 2. Even if this petition was filed in time, then also this Court would not have granted such permission to convert it into a revision petition.Because, according to the present roster the matters under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are assigned to this Court and revision petitions are assigned to the other learned Judge. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that when he filed this petition, petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and criminal revision petitions were assigned to only one Judge. Be that as it may. Roster is changed from time to time. Presently, different Roster is there. In any case, when alternative and better remedy of revision was available to the petitioner then he should have availed the same. 3. In view of the above observation, without going into the merits of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is dismissed. 4. At this stage, Mr. Gupta learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 S.C. P 2206, seeks permission to withdraw this petition with a view to appear before the Trial Court.Permission is granted.This petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Petitioner dismissed. *******