JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, whereby the learned Judge has declined to accept the reports filed under Section 169 Cr.P.C. and had taken cognizance for offences under Sections 332, 353 I.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a report was made by respondent No. 2 before the Station House Officer of Police Station Surajpole on 19.8.2008 against one Shri Raj Kumar. On the basis of the said report, a F.I.R. was lodged against Raj Kumar Gurjar for offence under Sections 135 and 138 Electricity Act and 332 and 353 I.P.C. Thereafter the investigation was carried out and charge-sheet was filed against Raj Kumar along with the petitioner for offence under Sections 332, 353 I.P.C. and 135, 138 of the Electricity Act. However, on the application made by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, the matter was re-investigated by the concerned Investigating Officer. During the re-investigation, the co-accused namely Raj Kumar died. The Investigating Officer made a negative final report under Section 169 Cr.P.C., before the Court. Vide order dated 12.1.2009, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur, declined to accept the report filed under Section 169 Cr.P.C.; he sent the matter under Section 228 Cr.P.C., to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur to hold the trial for offence under Sections 332 and 353 I.P.C. The trial is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the first statement of Shri Naru, respondent No. 2, was recorded on 19.8.2008 wherein he did not reveal the involvement of the petitioner in the incident. It is only in his supplementary statement dated 28.8.2008 that for the first time respondent No. 2 has claimed that the petitioner was not only present at the scene of crime, but was also involved in preventing the public officers from carrying out their public duty. However, respondent No. 2 again changed his stand in his second supplementary statement on 22.10.2008; he did not utter a single word with regard to the presence of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, respondent No. 2 is an unreliable witness as he is changing his stand with regard to the petitioner's involvement. However, respondent No. 2 again changed his stand in his second supplementary statement on 22.10.2008; he did not utter a single word with regard to the presence of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, respondent No. 2 is an unreliable witness as he is changing his stand with regard to the petitioner's involvement. Moreover, according to him, the learned trial Court has not given any cogent reason for taking cognizance against he petitioner. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously contended that the petitioner happens to be police personnel as he is a constable in the Rajasthan Police. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Judge was justified in noting the fact that in order to protect their own colleague, the police has not carried out a fair investigation". It has absolved him of any criminal liability. They have not only recorded the statement of respondent No. 2, but even statements of other witnesses who were not present it the scene of crime. Thus, the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that at the time of taking cognizance, the learned trial Court is only concerned with the existence of prima facie case. Moreover, cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender. A bare 1 perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge was alive to, the fact that the petitioner happens to be a constable in the police. The learned i Judge has further noticed the fact that in order to save their own colleague, the police recorded the statement of even those persons who were not present at the, scene of crime. Considering the fact that in his first supplementary statement, respondent No. 2 did name the petitioner as being involved in commission of the crime, the learned Judge was certainly justified in taking the cognizance of the offence under Sections 332 and 353 I.P.C. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 7. Hence, the revision petition is, hereby, dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise the objections before the learned trial Court which has been raised before this Court at the stage of framing of the charges.Petition dismissed. *******