JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the material available on the record. 2. Prima facie, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 17.12.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 71/94 whereby, the said revisional court had allowed the revision against the order dated 28.1.1994 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, Sikar in FIR No. 16/99 (FR No. 20/91) and the said in impugned-order of the trial Court was set aside taking cognisance of the offence under Section 302 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC. As a matter of abundant caution, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sikar should have directed the trial Court to commit the case to the Court of Sessions by passing a fresh order in accordance with law. However, is keeping in view the fact that the occurrence is of 20.12.1998 on the basis of which, the FIR was registered with the Police Station Laxmangarh, Sikar, no purpose would be served by upsetting the order passed by the revisional court since the same is a well reasoned order and the learned revisional court has taken all aspects of the matter, into consideration by discussing all relevant material on record. However, the only factor before the revisional court was the time factor i.e. the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 20.12.1998 and if the matter is remanded back to the trial Court, the purpose of the order passed by the revisional court would be frustrated and in my view the revisional court in its wisdom on due appreciation of evidence on the record has rightly taken the cognisance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and rather particularly the trial is yet to be commenced in this case hence, no prejudice would be caused to the either side. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has cited the judgments of this Court in the matter of Jagannath v. State : 1990 RCC 63 and Mahaveer Prasad v. State and Ors., 194 RCC 612 . 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has cited the judgments of this Court in the matter of Jagannath v. State : 1990 RCC 63 and Mahaveer Prasad v. State and Ors., 194 RCC 612 . 4. I have perused the ratio of the aforesaid judgments of this Court and in my view the ratio of the said judgments is not attracted to the facts of the instant case and is quite distinguishable. 5. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned-order dated 17.12.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar. 6. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed being not maintainable on merits.Revision dismissed. *******