JUDGEMENT Mandhata Singh, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 19.3.2002 passed in Cr. Revision No. 54 of 2002 by the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara whereby he has set aside the order dated 12.2.2002 passed by Shri B.N. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ara, in Complaint Case No. 462 (C) 2001 with respect to the petitioners. 2. Allegation alleged is to the effect that at the first instance accused No. 1 was sitting in his office where petitioner No. 1 was also present. For him it is said that he was instigating rather encouraging co-accused Nagendra Nath Ojha. That is the first instance. For the second instance, it is said that complainant was called by petitioner No. 2 at his residence where petitioner No. 1 and accused No. 1 were also present. Petitioner No. 2 pressurized the complainant to take his report back and on refusal all the accused persons abused on the instigation of petitioner No. 2. Again accused Nos. 1 and 2 caught the hand and neck of the complainant and drove him out of his residence. Same has been supported and corroborated by the complainant and his witnesses while examining themselves on S.A. 3. In the opinion of the Revisional Court a case was constituted against the petitioners also. So a direction is made to the cognizance taking Court to decide the matter afresh. 4. After going through the order passed by the cognizance taking Magistrate, I find that several assumptions, presumptions and even materials not to be taken at the stage of cognizance was taken into consideration while the complaint petition was dismissed for petitioners. For instance the observation of the cognizance taking Magistrate prima facie appears that petitioners had been roped in the case with ulterior motive accepting his (O.P.s) shielding from complications related to his service. There was a further mistake committed by the learned Magistrate that there was no material to be accepted at this stage that complainant joined in the service in the year 1981, remained under suspension since August, 1986 to July, 1995 for embezzlement and still one case is pending against him. 5. Thus, I find the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, has rightly come to the conclusion that observations made by the cognizance taking Court is not justified and should be decided afresh. 6. 5. Thus, I find the Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, has rightly come to the conclusion that observations made by the cognizance taking Court is not justified and should be decided afresh. 6. The revision petition is dismissed and conviction awarded by the Court below is affirmed.