Judgment : 1. The revision is directed against the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate - III, Thanjavur, in Crl. M.P. No. 2424 of 2005 in C.C.No.144 of 2005 dated 25.8.2005. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged by the first respondent against respondents 3 to 6 on 31.8.2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 447 and 427 I.P.C. and respondents/accused 3 to 6 were granted bail on 4.8.2003 in Cr. M.P. No. 2625 of 2003 for the said bailable offence. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C.. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents 3 to 6 were granted bail only for bailable offence. So their bail is liable to be cancelled. He further submits that a petition has been filed in Cr. M.P .No. 713 of 2004 before the Judicial Magistrate -III, Thanjavur for cancellation of bail ( sic) under Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. and the same was dismissed on the ground that the Magistrate cannot cancel the bail and that can be only done by the Honourable High Court or the Court of Sessions under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a petition in Crl. O.P. No. 2132 of 2005. The Honourable Judge directed the petitioner to approach the Court concerned for proper relief. Hence a petition was filed by the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 2424 of 2005 under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Thanjavur and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that bail granted to respondents 3 to 6 must be cancelled on two grounds viz., respondents 3 to 6 were not granted bail for non bailable offence and there was a threat to witnesses. 5. As per the direction of this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 2132 of 2005, he ought to have approached the Court concerned for proper relief and had to obtain orders from the concerned Magistrate. But he has not taken steps to obtain orders. 5. As per the direction of this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 2132 of 2005, he ought to have approached the Court concerned for proper relief and had to obtain orders from the concerned Magistrate. But he has not taken steps to obtain orders. When the petition was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - III, Thanajvur, it was correctly observed that the Magistrate cannot cancel the bail and that can be only done by the Honourable High Court or the Court of Session under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. 6. Considering the above observations, I find there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate - III, Thanjavur and I think it is just and proper to dismiss this revision. 7. In the result, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-III, Thanjavur is confirmed and this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl. M.P. is also dismissed.