JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — Heard Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner. The order dated 16.8.1994 passed in 1 C.C. No. 31 of 1995 by the learned J.M.F.C., Kantabanji taking cognizance of offences under Sections 341/323/354/336/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directing issue of Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest against the petitioner is impugned in this revision. 2. It is alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Range Officer, Kanta¬banji, one Tuna Rana (present informant) on 1st January, 1989 was found removing forest produce and wood from the reserve forest along with his sons. He was caught red-handed by one Biranchi Prasad Mishra, who filed a report before the Tureikela Police Station vide P.S. Case No.1 of 1989. It is submitted that being enraged by the said fact and in order to wriggle out of the aforesaid case, the said Tuna Rana filed an F.I.R. before the O.I.C., Tureikela P.S. under Sections 323/354/379/436/34. I.P.C. against the present petitioner and other foresters. The said F.I.R. was registered as P.S. Case No.2 of 1989. After being satisfied that the allegations levelled were not correct, the police submitted final form. Thereafter, the said Tuna Rana filed a complaint petition in the Court of J.M.F.C., Kantabanji, which was registered as 1 C.C. No.31 of 1989. Paragraph-1 of the afore¬said complaint petition reads as follows :- “The presence of all the accused persons (except Ranger) was at the place of occurrence on 1.1.1989 at 4 p.m. xx xx xx” 3. A reading of the entire complaint petition reveals that the occurrence was alleged to have taken place at 4 p.m. on 1.1.1989. It is further revealed that though other accused per¬sons have been specifically named therein and some overt acts have been attributed to them, the name of the petitioner, who was admittedly a Range Officer at the relevant time, does not find place therein nor any overt act has been attributed to him except his name being mentioned in the Cause Title, where he has been arrayed as an accused along with the other accused persons. By Order dated 16.8.1994, the learned J.M.F.C., Kantabanji on perus¬al of the complaint petition and other materials observed as follows :- “On perusal, I find that there is sufficient ground to proceed against all these accused persons named in the complaint petition for the offences under Sections 341/323/354/436/ read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Hence, cognizance of the offences u/Ss. 341/323/354/436 read with Section 34, I.P.C. is taken against all the accused persons named in the complaint petition.” 4. This, according to Mr. Nayak, is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is forcefully submitted that as no specific overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner and only he has been arrayed as an accused, the learned Court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioner. It is also submitted that even reading of the first paragraph of the com¬plaint petition reveals that the present petitioner was not an accused, inasmuch as the complainant himself has excluded his presence at the time of occurrence. It is also submitted by Mr Nayak that the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant earlier in the Police Station also does not contain the name of the petitioner and as such, addition of the name of the petitioner in the com¬plaint petition later on as an accused was only to harass him though no allegations have been levelled against him in the body of the complaint petition. Mr. Nayak further strenuously submit¬ted that the learned J.M.F.C. while taking cognizance should have applied his mind in proper perspective and should have taken cognizance of the offences only against the other accused per¬sons, who were alleged to have committed certain overt acts. 5. By Order dated 12.11.1997 this Court while issuing notice to the informant, the present opposite party No.2, specif¬ically observed that the case would be disposed of finally at the time of admission. The notice issued by this Court has been duly served on opposite party No.2, the informant. However, he has chosen not to appear before this Court. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perusing the Annexures to the Criminal Misc. The notice issued by this Court has been duly served on opposite party No.2, the informant. However, he has chosen not to appear before this Court. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and perusing the Annexures to the Criminal Misc. Case petition as well as the case records, I am satisfied that Order dated 16.8.1995 taking cognizance of the offences against the present petitioner was not justified in the absence of any allegation levelled against him in the complaint petition. The order also reveals non-application of mind. I have, therefore, no hesitation to quash the order so far as it relates to the petitioner, Sri Pramod Kumar Pradhan. It is needless to say that the order of cognizance so far as other accused persons are concerned is not disturbed and the Court below is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. 7. Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith. Petition disposed of.