JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor. 2. By the impugned order dated 23.5.1997, learned ACJM, Navan has taken cognizance under section 407, IPC against Radhey Shyam, non-petitioner No. 2 herein. The above order was challenged by the latter by filing revision petition No. 56/97 in the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Merta, which was accepted by order dated 10.12.1997. Hence, this petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. 3. The submissions of the learned counsel are that registered owner of the Tractor No. RJ 21-2334 was Kane Ram and not only registration certificate but also Insurance papers were in his name. The tractor was purchased by him by taking loan from Nagaur Co-operative Land Development Bank, Parbatsar Branch. It is also stated that Radhey Shyam (non-petitioner No. 2) was driver and did not return the tractor to registered owner, therefore, an FIR No. 108/96 was registered at Police Station, Maroth. The Police upon investigation, submitted Final Report in the Court below. Upon filing protest petition, the trial Court took cognizance against Radhey Shyam but same was set aside in revision petition by the impugned order dated 10.12.1997. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for non- petitioner that registered owner of the tractor was Kana Ram, however, he could not pay instalments to the Bank and sold the same to non-petitioner No. 2 for Rs. 1,67,000/- on 1st March, 1993. On that very day, Rs. 20,000/- were paid in cash to Kana Ram and remaining amount was to be paid in 27 monthly instalments of Rs. 20,000/- each. Upon the balance amount interest at the rate of 24% per annum was also to be paid. A writing to above effect was also executed and signed allegedly by Kana Ram. Learned trial court has considered all these aspects and has taken cognizance whereas learned Sessions Judge has proceeded in lackadiseal manner and misguided itself. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully scrutinised the file of the case. A cognizance for an offence can be taken if from the record available on the file, prima facie, ingredients of offence are made out. It is yet to be seen in the trial which part of the evidence recorded by Police/Court is true and which is false. A cognizance for an offence can be taken if from the record available on the file, prima facie, ingredients of offence are made out. It is yet to be seen in the trial which part of the evidence recorded by Police/Court is true and which is false. When prima facie Radhey Shyam (respondent No. 2) had made allegation that the registered owner has sold the tractor to him on 1.3.1993 for Rs. 1,67,000/-. Out of above amount, Rs. 20,000/- were paid on that very day and the remaining amount was to be paid in instalments and when in support of above plea, not only ocular statement was there but also a receipt & deed allegedly signed by Kana Ram (sic) was also submitted then, prima facie, it cannot be said that offence under section 407, IPC is made out. 6. Without referring to merits of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that Session Court has committed any illegality much less any irregularity; there being no abuse of the process of the Court nor affecting interests of justice. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this petition and dismiss the same.Petition dismissed. *******