JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge Nagaur which are passed while holding her camp at Deedwana on 8.12.94. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned PP and the counsel for the complainant. 3. On 16.3.93 Sharif Khan lodged a FIR at police station Baradwa in which alleged that his son Samandar Khan was going towards Nimod. When he reached near the bus stand. Kundanmal. Radheyshyam, Damodar. Kishore, Banwarilal suddenly appeared and inflicted injuries to Samandar Khan. A case under Section 149, 307 IPC was registered and Section 326, 324 IPC were also added. Police submitted challan against Radheyshyam. Kishore Kumar and Damodar. In respect of Banwari Lal, investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. on 28.7.93, an application was moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor for taking cognizance against Kundanmal but on 13.8.93 he submitted an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. to release him. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana heard arguments on this application and did not take cognizance against the petitioner and released him under the provisions of Section 169 Cr.P.C. Against this order dated 4.10.93, Samandar Khan filed a revision petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur camp Deedwana by making the petitioner a party to it. He was never served but the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the arguments of Samandar Khan and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to take cognizance against Kundanmal and tried him for offence under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 IPC. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order and has filed this revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited 1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 709, Jagannath v. State of Rajasthan in which it has been observed that when Additional Sessions Judge found that dismissal of complaint was not correct and took cognizance of offence, the order was illegal as no power was vested in him in a revision to have taken cognizance himself. He has also cited 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 341, Pura Ram & Anr. v. State & Anr. , in which it has been held that the direction to the trial court to register the case against the petitioner could not be given and the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge were quashed and set aside. He has also cited 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 341, Pura Ram & Anr. v. State & Anr. , in which it has been held that the direction to the trial court to register the case against the petitioner could not be given and the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the trial court for proceeding further in accordance with law. It was open to the learned Magistrate to consider all the relevant aspects of the case and to come to his own conclusion in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant relied on 1997(1) RLW (Raj.) 337, Gulab Jatti & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. , in which it was observed in a case of application of 319 Cr.PC. that the exercise of powers by the Sessions Judge might be under wrongful provision but that will not render the order illegal. In that case though the name of the accused petitioner was already disclosed in the FIR but after completion of investigation police did not file challan against them and filed challan only against some of the accused persons. It was submitted that the powers under Section 319 Cr.PC. could not have been invoked against persons who were no the accused, in view of Supreme Court Judgment in Kishan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, 1973 Cr.L.R. (SC) 193 , the exercise of powers of the Sessions Court under wrongful provision will not render the impugned order illegal. 6. I have considered the citations. Gulab Jatti's and Kishan Singh's case (supra) do not apply to the case in hand. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have remanded the case to the learned Magistrate without any direction to take cognizance as per the provisions of law. 7. Consequently, the revision is allowed and the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Magistrate to look into the matter himself and in case he finds that there is evidence to proceed against the petitioner, he may proceed against him after hearing him. The petitioner's directed to appear before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana on 18.12.1997> Revision petition allowed.. *******