JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the order dated 10.2.98 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali, accepted the revision filed by the State against the order of discharge and took cognizance against the petitioners (accused) under Section 447, 427 and 323 IPC and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. 2. Mr. Garg contends that the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is illegal and beyond the scope of Section 398, Cr.P.C. He places reliance on the cases of Jagannath v. State of Raj. 1989 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 709 and Parmeshwar Lal & Ors. v. Dilip Sharma and Anr. 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 426 . The learned PP. has not been able to support the order. 3. Under Section 398 Cr.P.C., Sessions Judge on examining the record may direct any subordinate Magistrate to make further enquiry into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. In the instant case, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge instead of directing the Magistrate to make further enquiry himself took cognizance and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial of the case. The order is obviously beyond the scope of Section 398 Cr.P.C. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not have powers to take cognizance against the accused person which was in the domain of the Magistrate. The order is, therefore, not sustainable in law. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted, impugned order is set-aside and the matter is sent back to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali for deciding the revision afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.Revision Accepted. *******