JUDGMENT 1. - These revision petitions are directed against the order passed by learned Court dated 11.8.2005 rejecting the revision petitions against the order of trial Court taking cognizance against the petitioner for alleged offence under the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986. 2. The learned revisional Court has partly allowed the revision petitions and while maintaining the order of cognizance against the accused-petitioner, the learned Court below has set aside the order for issuing arrest warrant against the petitioner under Sections 82 and 83 Criminal Procedure Code. treating the accused petitioner as absconding. 3. The arguments which have been raised before this Court in the present petitions, have been dealt with by the learned revisional Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the contention that he had no business known as 'Galicha Bunai Kendra' at place Bansoor and in the complaint itself, name which is clearly shown as Surindra Nath is not his name, as his name is Surindra Nath Kapoor. He also raised the contention that learned trial Court even prior to taking cognizance vide order dated 22.4.1998 had summoned the accused petitioner with bailable warrant of Rs. 2,500/- vide order dated 28.2.1998 which was illegal. 4. Both these contentions have been taken note of by learned revisional Court in the order impugned and Court below has clearly held, that in absence of complete address of accused petitioner, the process issued by the Court on earlier occasions were not served and, therefore, the arrest warrants under Sections 82 and 83 Criminal Procedure Code. were issued against the accused petitioner. Thus, the revisional Court, as already stated has set aside the order of arrest warrant and has directed the accused petitioner to appear before the trial Court on 12.9.2005 and raise his objection as to his connection with "Galicha Bunai Kendra" Bansoor. 5. Since, the cognizance is only of offence and not of the offender, on the basis of averments made in the complaint filed by Public Servant, the trial Court cannot be said to have committed any error in taking cognizance of the alleged offence of employing child labour In the Industry hazardous for the health and, therefore, no fault could be found with the order taking cognizance. 6. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of impugned orders, this Court is of the view that there is no force in these Miscellaneous Petition and no ground is made out to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the cognizance order of learned trial Court on the aforesaid grounds. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have already been properly and rightly dealt with by the revisional Court in the order impugned and, therefore, no ground for setting aside of that revisional order is made out. 7. Consequently, these Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******