JUDGMENT 1. - This revision is directed against the order dated 3.10.1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sheoganj whereby he accepted the final report and rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner-complainant. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 2.2.1996 Ota Ram lodged a report at Police Station, Paldi alleging that his sons who were employed on the agricultural land of Tej Singh, had some dispute with him with regard to the wages. It was alleged that two unknown persons came in a Jeep of Tej Singh and took away his son Hira Ram forcibly on 1.2.1996. On this report a case under section 365 IPC was registered. The police after investigation gave final report. Complainant Ota Ram filed a protest petition on which the Magistrate recorded the statement of Ota Ram and his witnesses Dala Ram, Aja Ram, Hira Ram and Dunga Ram. After hearing the counsel for the complainant, the learned Magistrate accepted the F.R. and dismissed the protest petition. 3. The contention of Mr. Kumbhat is that the witnesses in their statements on oath clearly state that Hira Ram was forcibly taken by Tej Singh, Hari Singh and Daula Ram and, therefore, cognizance should have been taken by the Magistrate. 4. Mr. Shah on the other hand contends that the material produced before the Magistrate clearly revealed that Hira Ram was arrested in connection with criminal case No. 138/95 registered at Eliz Bej Police Station, Ahmedabad and the FIR was lodged by Ota Ram without knowing the correct facts. 5. I have carefully considered the above arguments. It is obvious from the documents shown to me and relied on by the learned Magistrate that a criminal case under section 406 IPC was registered at Police Station Eliz Bej, Ahmedabad on the FIR lodged by one Umesh Kumar. Tej Singh was not in picture in that case. Be that as it may, since Hira Ram was taken away by the police of Ahmedabad in connection with a case registered against him, it cannot be said that there was abduction of Hira Ram or his brother. The learned Magistrate has rightly discarded the evidence produced in the enquiry. In view of the documents produced before me, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 6. The learned Magistrate has rightly discarded the evidence produced in the enquiry. In view of the documents produced before me, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 6. There being no illegality in the impugned order, the revision petition is dismissed.Revision disallowed. *******