JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the record of this case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that no case for the offence under Section 436 is made out and submits that for rest of the offences, he does not want to argue. Learned counsel submits that only "Baad" has been burnt and accused petitioners had no intention or no knowledge that thereby they would burnt the building. He has also drawn my attention towards the site memo and produced some photographs of place of the occurrence and argues that only "Baadand Parchi" has been burnt, thus it cannot be said that there was any intention or knowledge to the accused petitioners and submits that no offence under Section 436 is made out against the petitioners. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that no interference should be called for in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Pali Camp Jaitaran. 4. I have gone through the evidence recorded during the evidence as well as gone through the site plan. The witnesses have specifically states that the accused had lit fire the "Baad" only. "Baad and Parchi" has been burnt and house and building were safe. The police after investigation found the case under Section 435 IPC against the accused petitioners. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 436 IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also framed the charges under Section 436 IPC. 5. Looking to the evidence recorded during the investigation, I am of the view that no case under Section 436 IPC is made out at this stage. Section 436 reads as follows ; - "Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc. Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 6. Looking to the language of this Section, it clearly appears that since the building has not been burnt and no knowledge or intention could be drawn, thus the case does not fall under Section 436 IPC. Therefore, no offence under Section 436 is made out against the accused petitioners and the same is set aside. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case only case under Section 435 IPC is made out instead of 436 IPC against the accused petitioners. 7. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned court below is set aside upto the extent of charge under section 436 IPC and the matter is remanded back for passing appropriate orders in this matter.Revision partly allowed. *******