Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr. P.C.) against the revisions! order passed by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Cr. revision No. 908 of 1999 who has rejected the revision petition filed against the order of cognizance and issuance of notice being made in the Complaint Case No. 257 of 1992 (Tr. No. 1348 of 1998). After enquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C. cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and others. Against the said cognizance and issuance of notice, revision was preferred that too belatedly and the revision petition has been rejected as barred by limitation. 3. There is no scope in entertaining any revision petition by the sessions Judge against the order of cognizance being taken and issuance of notice and only High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the said orders under section 482 Cr. P.C. So any order passed by the Sessions Judge is non-est in the eye of law. 4. Now coming to the factual aspect, it is stated that after the petitioner has been transferred from the station, the present complaint has been lodged when a certificate proceeding was initiated for non payment of the loan. In this case, after holding enquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C. cognizance has been taken. 5. The petitioner might have a good case regarding sanction 197 Cr. P.C. and falsity of the case he may raise by appearing before the Magistrate in the above mentioned case. In that view, this petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to take appropriate steps at the appropriate stage before the learned Magistrate, Jhanjharpur. If any complaint is still pending against the petitioner and if any prayer for discharge is made, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall consider the same on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and then dispose of the matter by a reasoned order. 6. With the above observation/direction, this application is disposed of.