JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 30.S.96 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Siwana whereby he accepted the Final Report in C.R. No. 41/92 PS. Samdari and refused to take cognizance against the respondents. 2. Mr. Mohanani contends that in the order the learned Magistrate has not discussed the evidence recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.PC., therefore, the order is ex facie illegal. He points out that the petitioner was the President of the Trust and contends that trust property was in his possession and as the respondents broke open the locks and took away the articles lying in the trust building they have committed the offence. 3. Mr. Garg, on the other hand, points out that the learned Magistrate has considered the evidence recorded in the enquiry under Chapter XV Cr.PC. and contends that there is no cause to interfere in the order of accepting the F.R. more so when dispute, if at all, is of civil nature. 4. I have carefully considered the above arguments. It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order did not go through the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.PC, There is a mention of the statements of A.W. 1 Ghewar Chand, A.W. 2 Saheb Chand, A.W. 3 Daya Chand, A.W. 4 Jabar Singh, A.W. 5 Jai Singh and A.W. 6 Champalal in the order. The learned Magistrate observes in the order that he has gone through the police report as also the statements of the witnesses examined by him. In the order of taking cognisance or refusing to take cognisance it is not necessary for the Magistrate to State in detail as to what particular witness deposes. The reference of the statements of the witnesses and observations that he had gone through the statements of these witnesses certainly shows that the learned Magistrate had considered the evidence produced before him. it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed without application of mind to the material on record. 5. On merits also there is no substance in this revision petition. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was-the President of the trust prior to 1988 in the elections held the accused persons were elected and therefore, the petitioner had ceased to have control over the property of the trust. 5. On merits also there is no substance in this revision petition. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was-the President of the trust prior to 1988 in the elections held the accused persons were elected and therefore, the petitioner had ceased to have control over the property of the trust. It appears that the petitioner was not satisfied with the procedure adopted in the election, and therefore, he put his locks on the property of the trust. He, however, did not care to challenge the elections for four years before the competent authority. The respondents who were elected members could not wait for indefinite period. Even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments, that they had broken open the locks of the property of the trust, it cannot be said that they had dishonest intention in doing so. As a matter of fact, they were the elected persons and as their election was not challenged, they had a right to take possession of the trust property. The learned Magistrate has considered all the aspects of the matter and it cannot be said that he has committed any error in passing the impugned order. 6. There is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. *******