JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu dated 5.12.1997 whereby he dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner challenging the order of taking cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate, Churu. 2. Mr. Gehlot contended that the police had given the final report and the Magistrate without considering the final report has taken cognizance, which is illegal. He relied on the cases of Daleep Singh v. Smt. Magan, 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 483 , Firm Suresh Kumar Shankerlal v. State of Raj., 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 543 and Abdul Rehman v. State of Raj., 1993 RCC 690 . Pointing out that, Parmeshwar Ram (complainant) has been convicted, in respect of the occurrence of the same date, he submitted that the complainant has instituted a false case against the petitioner who was the member of the raiding party of the Excise Department. 3. The short facts of the case are that on 12.1.1994 respondent Parmeshwar filed a complaint against petitioner Mangal Chand and five others alleging that on the night of 6.1.1994 when the was sitting on his shop, they entered in his shop, manhandled him and took away Rs. 2,500/- from his cash box and he was framed in a false case of seven bottles of liquor. This complaint was forwarded to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After the completion of the investigation, the police gave final report. Respondent-complainant Parmeshwar Ram filed a protest petition on which statements of the complainant and his witnesses under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate against the petitioner and others vide order dated 14.11.1994. That order was challenged in revision before the Sessions Judge. The revision was dismissed vide order dated 20.6.1996, with the observation that the accused could make submission before the Magistrate against the order of cognizance. The learned Judicial Magistrate thereafter heard both the parties and again took cognizance vide order dated 4.8.1997. The petitioner challenged the order before the Sessions Judge. The revision was heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu who vide order dated 5.12.1997 dismissed the revision. Hence, this misc. petition. 4. At the out set, it may be stated that this petition is not maintainable as it is nothing but second revision petition in the garb of misc. petition. The revision was heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Churu who vide order dated 5.12.1997 dismissed the revision. Hence, this misc. petition. 4. At the out set, it may be stated that this petition is not maintainable as it is nothing but second revision petition in the garb of misc. petition. Second revision is barred by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. In the case of Neeraj Kumar v. State, 1996(2) WLC (Raj.) 215 the Division Bench of this Court has held that in view of the statutory bar under section 397(3) party having already taken recourse to revision cannot be allowed to take recourse to Section 482 and thereby circumvent the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 5. On merits also, there is no substance in the contentions raised by Mr. Gehlot. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance after holding enquiry under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C. The statement under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. are recorded on oath. If there was material before the Magistrate constituting the offence, it was his duty to issue process against the petitioner. It may be that the police had given final report but that would not prevent the Magistrate to take cognizance on the basis of the statements recorded by him under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. It is not necessary for the Magistrate to weight the material at the stage of cognizance and see if the accused may be convicted on the evidence sought to be produced. The only requirement is that the Magistrate peruses the entire material on record at the time of taking cognizance, but it is not necessary that he should discuss the statements recorded by police and the statements recorded on oath in the order. 6. The case of Daleep Singh v. Smt. Magan (supra) relied on by Mr. Gehlot does not help the petitioner. In that case, it has been held that it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to have considered the report of the SHO. It is significant to point out that the police had not held investigation of that case. The SHO had held enquiry on the basis of a copy of the complaint sent to him by the Magistrate. In that case, it has been held that it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to have considered the report of the SHO. It is significant to point out that the police had not held investigation of that case. The SHO had held enquiry on the basis of a copy of the complaint sent to him by the Magistrate. Thus the statements were not recorded by the SHO during investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. The statements were obviously recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate is empowered under section 202 Cr.P.C. to get an enquiry made by any person and under that power the SHO was asked to hold enquiry. It is in this context that this Court held that it was incumbent for the Magistrate to have considered the statements recorded by the SHO. This ruling does not help the petitioner. 7. In the case of Firm Suresh Kumar Shankerlal v. State of Rajasthan (supra), it has been held that the Magistrate is bound to consider judiciously as to whether case of issue of process against the person was made out or not. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has issued process against the petitioner after recording evidence and looking to the evidence it cannot be said that the Magistrate has not acted judiciously. It may be that respondent Parmeshwar Ram has been convicted for possessing illicit liquor on 6.1.1994 but that does not necessarily mean that the case filed by the respondent is false. The case filed against Parmeshwar Ram was for the recovery of the illicit liquor from his possession when he was going towards the village whereas the instant case is with regard to the incident which took place in the night of 6.1.1994 at his shop. The two incidents appear to have taken place at different times. 8. In the case of Abdul Rehman (supra) it has been observed that if the Magistrate does not consider the F.R. at the time of taking cognizance against the accused, the order of cognizance is not sustainable. In the instant case, the order of the Magistrate deary shows that he had gone through the entire file of the case, which included the final report. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of cognizance was passed without considering the final report. In the instant case, the order of the Magistrate deary shows that he had gone through the entire file of the case, which included the final report. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of cognizance was passed without considering the final report. Consideration of the final report does not necessarily mean that the reasons recorded in the final report should be discussed by the Magistrate in his order. If the order indicates that the Magistrate was conscious of the final report, it shall be presumed that he had considered the said report. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed order considering the pros and cons of the case. What is required to be seen at that stage is if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. Once evidence is recorded on oath under Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure, and the allegation in the complaint are not so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, it is the duty of the Magistrate to take cognizance even though the police had.given final report. That being so, that ruling does not help the petitioner. 9. As already stated, the evidence is recorded by the Magistrate in the enquiry under Chapter XV on oath. In the presence of the statements recorded on oath more weight could not be given to the statement recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. The final report is only the opinion of the Investigating Officer. The Magistrate is not bound by the final report and he is well within his powers to act upon the evidence produced under sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. 10. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******