JUDGMENT 1. - Both these revision petitions have been filed on behalf of accused persons challenging legality, propriety and validity of the order dated 19.2.1995 passed by Judl. Magistrate, No. 1, Barmer in Cr.Case No. 837/95 and by order dated 3.5.1996 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer in Cr. Revision No. 06/96. There being identical factual and legal aspects involved and there being joint arguments advanced on behalf of parties, they are being disposed of by this single order, copy of which shall be retained in each file. 2. Necessary facts for the correct appreciation of the points involved are that Narain (non-petitioner No. 2 herein) married Smt. Tulsi about 13 years prior to filing of the complaint. Subsequently, Tulsi married for the second time with Sahi Ram (non-petitioner No. 1 herein) without getting divorce from Narain, resulting which Narain filed a complaint u/s. 494 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Barmer, against not only Tulsi and her new husband Sahi Ram but also 5 other persons. After recording of statements of Narain u/s. 200 and his witness Mala Ram u/s. 202 Cr.P.C., the trial Court took cognizance against Tulsi alone for offence u/s. 494 IPC by order dated 19.12.1995. 3. Aggrieved against that order, Narain filed a revision petition No. 6/96 before Adl. Sessions Judge, Bamer against Sahi Ram etc., which was accepted by order dated 3.5.1996 and the Court below was directed to take cognizance against non-petitioners No. 2 to 7, for offence u/s. 494 r/w Section 109 IPC. Thereafter, not only order dated 3.5.1996 was challenged but also order dated 19.12.1995, passed by Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Barmer, by the accused persons. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for petitioners are that whether complainant-Narain ever married Tulsi has not, prima facie, been proved by evidence recorded u/ss. 200 & 202 Cr.P.C., even date, month or year of marriage of Narain with Tulsi has not been mentioned in the complaint as also in statements of Narain recorded u/s. 200 Cr.P.C. Similarly, it has been submitted that whether Raja Ram etc. helped or instigated Sahi Ram in his marriage with Tulsi, has not been prima facie proved and therefore, trial Court by its order dated 19.12.1995 has not taken cognizance against them but revisional Court, exceeding its jurisdiction, reassessed and reappreciated the evidence and not only accepted the revision against Sahi Ram etc. helped or instigated Sahi Ram in his marriage with Tulsi, has not been prima facie proved and therefore, trial Court by its order dated 19.12.1995 has not taken cognizance against them but revisional Court, exceeding its jurisdiction, reassessed and reappreciated the evidence and not only accepted the revision against Sahi Ram etc. but gave a positive direction to the trial Court to take cognizance against these persons for offence u/ss. 494/109 IPC, which according to the learned counsel, is contrary to law, causing miscarriage of justice. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the non-petitioner-Narain Ram has supported the impugned order. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. At the stage of taking cognizance, a meticulous examination of evidence available on the file is not expected and if the evidence so available, prima facie believed to be true, constitute ingredients of any offence, cognizance shall be taken. At that stage, Court is not justified.in shifting evidence as if was exercising power of Court of trial. Apex Court held so in Ramashankar Mani Tripathi v. State of Bihar, 2001(3) Crimes (SC) 195 among others. 7. In the matter at hand, even if date, month or year of marriage of complainant-Narain with Tulsi may not have been mentioned in the complaint or in his statement recorded u/s. 200 Cr.P.C., that by itself is not fatal to the prosecution because meticulous examination is to be done at the trial. If some witness gives testimony on oath before a Court of law, that has to be prima facie believed to be true unless and until there are strong reasons to disbelieve the testimony. As no cross-examination could be conducted at the stage of Section 200 and Sec., 202 Cr.P.C., statements recorded as such should have been taken to be true and must have been taken cognizance of by the trial Court. No specific reasons have been mentioned why cognizance has been taken only against Tulsi and not against Sahi Ram etc. The revisional Court though was justified in relying upon ocular testimony of Narain and his witness, however, it was not in its realm to have directed the Court below to take cognizance for offence u/s. 494/109 IPC. To that extent, order dated 3.5.1996 is not according to law and therefore, set aside. At the most, trial Court could have been directed to proceed afresh after hearing both the parties. 8. To that extent, order dated 3.5.1996 is not according to law and therefore, set aside. At the most, trial Court could have been directed to proceed afresh after hearing both the parties. 8. Therefore, these revision petitions are disposed of with direction to trial Court to proceed a fresh according to law, without taking into consideration the direction of the revisional Court mentioned above and irrespective of anything mentioned in the order dated 3.5.1996. Similarly, trial Court will not get influenced by anything mentioned in this order and shall form its own opinion on the basis of evidence available on the file. Record of Court below be sent back forthwith.Revision petitions disposed of. *******