JUDGMENT 1. - Delay in filing the revision petition is, hereby, condoned. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Dungargarh, Bikaner, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to take cognizance against the non-petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 219, 447, 427 and 120-B I.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the jurisdiction for taking cognizance is extremely limited one where the Court is concerned only with seeing whether prima facie case is made out or not? At the initial stage of taking cognizance, the Court is not permitted to go beyond the evidence produced by the prosecution. However, the learned Magistrate has erred in critically discussing the evidence while passing the impugned judgment. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has not discussed the statements of the complainant and statements of his witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., respectively. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has ignored the evidence which was readily available before her. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has contended that the learned Magistrate was justified in relying upon the revenue record and in concluding that no offence was made out for offences under Sections 147, 219, 447, 427, 120-B I.P.C. order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that at the time of taking cognizance, the jurisdiction of the Court is an extremely limited one. The Court can neither go beyond the evidence produced by the prosecution, nor can it see the pros and cons of the prosecution case. The Court is merely concerned with the-issue whether prima facie an offence has been committed or not. In fact, the cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offenders. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 17.11.2005 clearly lays down that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses. Instead, the learned Magistrate has gone on a tangent and has discussed evidence as though the Magistrate were passing an order of acquittal. Hence, the Magistrate has over-stepped his jurisdiction. 8. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.11.2005 and in remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate. Instead, the learned Magistrate has gone on a tangent and has discussed evidence as though the Magistrate were passing an order of acquittal. Hence, the Magistrate has over-stepped his jurisdiction. 8. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.11.2005 and in remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the evidence produced by the prosecution and to pass the order of cognizance strictly in accordance with law.The petition is, hereby, allowed.Revision allowed. *******