JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Admit. Notice is given to the learned Public Prosecutor. It is not necessary to call for the record. 3. This revision is directed against the order dated 10.8.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 45/97, whereby the learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 IPC and framed the charges. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet under Secs. 498-A and 304-B IPC. The charge under Section 304-B IPC was dropped by this Court by order dated 5.11.1998 and it was also directed in that order that if a submission is made before the Trial Court for framing charge under Section 306 IPC a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties shall be passed by the Trial Court in accordance with law. An application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor on 5.1.1999 that offence under Section 306 IPC is prima facie made out against the petitioners and congnizance should taken against the accused for the said offence. This application was contested on behalf of the petitioners. The learned Trial Court on hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the statement of the witnesses during investigation and the dying declaration of deceased Manju recorded in presence of the Medical Officer and recorded by Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that a prima facie case appears against the petitioner for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 306 IPC. Thus, the impugned order came to be passed as stated above. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and persued the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there is no evidence or any material against the petitioners for taking cognizance under Section 306 IPC Bhawar Lal was discharged of the offence under Secs. 304-B and 498-A IPC. It is further argued that there is no evidence to show that there was any abetment to commit suicide soon before the alledged suicide by deceased Smt. Manju. More-over, when Bhawar Lal was discharged of both the offences under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC, the cognizance and charge could not be framed against him without recording evidence in the trial before the stage of Sec.319 Cr.RC. More-over, when Bhawar Lal was discharged of both the offences under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC, the cognizance and charge could not be framed against him without recording evidence in the trial before the stage of Sec.319 Cr.RC. Therefore, the order of cognizance and framing of the charge against Bhawar Lal suffers from patent illegality. 6. I have perused the impugned order, wherein the learned Trial Court has considered in detail the declaration of the deceased Manju and other Statements of sthe witnesses Daulat Singh, Mohanlal, Lalit Kumar, Dhanraj, Kishanlal, Manaklal, Mahendra Kumar and Satish Mathur. On perusing the statements of the above witnesses, the learned Trial Court found prima facie material against the petitioners for framing the charge under Section 306 IPC. It is of no consequence that the learned impugned order has been passed at the stage of farming the charge and at that stage the Trial Court frames charge on the basis of the documents submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. There was no stage for taking cognizance against the petitioners No.1 to 5 which were already before the Court for trial on commitment of the case and it was directed by this Court by order dated 5.11.1998 that the application filed on behalf of the prosecution for framing the charge under Sec.306 IPC shall be considered by the Trial Court by passing a speaking order. Thus, the learned Trial Court has considered this applications of this Court for coming to the conclusion whether a charge under Sec.306 IPC is prima facie made out against them. So far as the petitioners No.1 to 5 is concerned the impugned order does not call for any interference because I do not see illegality or any irregularity in the order. 7. However, the case of petitioner No.6 Bhawar Lal stands on different footing because both the charges under Secs. 498-A and 304-B IPC, were quashed against him i.e., he stood discharged for the above offences. The learned Trial Court has observed in the impugned order for taking congnizance against Bhawar Lal under Section 306 IPC and to procure his attendance by warrant of arrest, since petitioner No.6 was discharged, he was no more accused in this case. Therefore, cognizance could not be taken against him before any material was brought on record by the prosecution through examining the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, cognizance could not be taken against him before any material was brought on record by the prosecution through examining the prosecution witnesses. The question of cognizance against Bhawar Lal could be considered only after recording of prosecution evidence at the stage of the case under Sec.319 Cr.PC. which makes provision for taking cognizance against any person not being the accused in the case if there appears from the evidence led during inquiry or trial that he has committed the offence. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order to the extent of taking cognizance against petitioner No. 6 Bhawar Lal is no sustainable.In the result, this revision petition partly succeeds. The impugned order is partly set aside to the extent of taking cognizance and ordering to issue warrant of arrest against petitioner No.6 Bhawar Lal. The impugned order passed against petitioners No.1 to 5 is hereby maintained and to that extent this revision petition is dismissed.Revision petition partly allowed. *******