JUDGMENT 1. - The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 25.06.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in Criminal Revision No. 218/2006 (278/2006) whereby the learned Judge has allowed the revision petition filed by the accused respondents and - 'cashed and set aside the order dated 05.10.2006. In Case No. 269/2004) 1..,.,sed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhunjhuru, by which the learned magistrate allowed the application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. and taken cognizance against the accused respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 341 IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that complainant-petitioner herein, submitted a written report to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu on 17.09.2004 stating therein that at about 7.00 PM in evening on 15.03.2004 two boys namely Sudhir S/o Pratap and Sandeep S/o Moolchand came to 5 his house and manhandled him and also abused him by caste related words. Thereafter, when the complainant went to the shop of Moolchand Noonia for making complaint, where he found that Pratap Noonia and Moolchand Noonia were present and after that two boys also came there and all the four persons started beating the complainant and abused him. They also o snatched his gold chain. On the basis of the said complaint, the complainant was medically examined and some injuries were found on his body. The case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 379 IPC and Section 3(10) (1) of SC/ST Act. 3. The police after investigation filed charge sheet against the accused Moolchand for the offence under Sections 341 and 323 IPC before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. During the course of trial, the Additional Public Prosecutor moved an application u/s. 319 Cr.PC. for taking cognizance' against the accused respondents. The application u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the trial court vide its order dated 05.10.2006. 4. Against the order dated 05.10.2006, the accused respondents filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. The revisional Court vide its order dated 25.06.2007 allowed the revision petition and quashed the order dated 05.10.2006. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.06.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, the petitioner preferred this criminal revision petition. 6. The revisional Court vide its order dated 25.06.2007 allowed the revision petition and quashed the order dated 05.10.2006. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 25.06.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, the petitioner preferred this criminal revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the Additional Public Prosecutor ought to have been allowed, as it was supported by independent witnesses. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Vikram Singh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2006(2) RCC 999 . The Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that the issue of contradiction is to be decided by the trial court while passing judgment-While taking cognizance, evidence cannot be discussed in detail. Magistrate over stepped the jurisdiction vested in him while rejecting application under Section 319 Cr.PC. Impugned order, unsustainable, quashed and set aside. 7. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Niwas v. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in 2006(1) RCC 341 . 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the respondents and upon careful perusal of order impugned dated 25.06.2006 passed by the revisional Court, order dated 05.10.2006 passed by the trial court, for taking cognizance, the evidence cannot be discussed or appreciated by the trial court. As per settled preposition of law, the trial court prima facie satisfied that the case is made out against the accused. 9. The application under Section 319 Cr.RC. filed by the A.P.P. ought to have been allowed, which has been rejected by the revisional court, which is per se contrary to the ratio decided by this Court. Thus, the revisional Court has committed error in quashing the order of taking cognizance dated 05.10.2006. 10. In considered view of this Court, the order dated 25.06.2006 passed by the revisional Court requires interference by this Court. The order dated 25.06.2006 is hereby quashed and set aside while exercising power u/s. 397 and 401 Cr.PC. In the result, the criminal revision petition stands allowed.Revision allowed. *******