Honble YAMIN, J.–Heard. (2). In this revision a very short point of law is involved. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh took cognizance on a final report against the petitioners for offence under Sections 147, 14, 323, 336 read with 149 IPC. Though the offence was alleged to have been committed on 28.5.1994 yet the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 16.12.1998 and according to the petitioners the order of taking cognizance was time barred. (3). I have gone through the order. Learned Magistrate exercised powers under Section 473 Cr.P.C. suo moto. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if he was exercising the powers under Section 473 Cr.P.C. suo moto it was neces- sary to hear the accused petitioners before taking cognizance. Reliance has been placed on State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre & Ors. (1), wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that ``since the Chief Judicial Magistrate condoned the delay for launching the prosecution, without notice to the respondents and without affording any opportunity to the respondents to have their say, the case deserves to be remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for deciding the application filed by the prosecution seeking condonation of delay, if any, afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. (4). I find from the order of learned Magistrate that the counsel on behalf of Bhanwarlal had appeared after filing his power but the learned Magistrate did not allow him to address and passed the impugned order without affording him any opportunity to address. He just kept the Vakalatnama on `B part of the file and was of the opinion that it was not necessary to hear him. But this view of the learned Magistrate is not correct as both the counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor agree in view of State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre & (supra). (5). Consequently, the order of learned Magistrate is set aside. The case is remitted to him back. He will afford an opportunity to the petitioners to address him and then pass a fresh order after hearing them. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate to address him on 5.4.1999. (6). The revision stands allowed as indicated above.