JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition filed under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C., the petitioner is challenging order dated 12.09.1997 passed in Sessions Case No.49/97 by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby, cognizance was taken by learned Sessions Judge against the petitioner upon application filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 319, Cr.P.C. for committing offence under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C., in the alternative, offence under Section 302, I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation in the FIR filed by the complainant challan was filed against two accused persons namely, Dharmdas and Tulsi Ram for offences under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C., in the alternative, Section 302, I.P.C. During trial, after recording statements of P.W.-7 Nathu Lal, P.W.-8 Smt. Geeta, father and mother of the deceased, learned Sessions Judge took cognizance against the petitioner and issued bailable warrant against the petitioner. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that order of taking cognizance dated 12.09.1997 is erroneous because as per the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court, if it is found after perusal of the evidence recorded in the trial that there is sufficient material to presume that ultimately conviction is possible, then, in that event, cognizance can be taken against a person in addition to the accused already challaned by the police. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned Sessions Judge committed an error while ignoring the fact that there is no material on record to show that ultimately the petitioner can be convicted, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 4. A very important fact is brought to the notice of the Court that vide order 27.01.2000, co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order while admitting this revision petition that operation of the impugned order dated 12.09.1997 shall remain stayed till final decision in the revision petition; and, further, it is ordered that the record of the trial Court be sent forthwith and it is directed that trial Court may proceed with trial against the persons already accused in the case. 5. 5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, after passing of the above order, trial against the accused already challaned by the police was resumed and, ultimately, the main accused were also acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment dated 20.12.2000; meaning thereby, the evidentiary value of statements of P.W.-7 Nathulal and P.W.-8 Smt. Geeta was appreciated by the trial Court and main accused are acquitted at the conclusion of the trial while applying mind to the testimony of both P.W.-7 Nathulal and P.W.-8 Smt. Geeta. In this view of the matter, when the main accused have been acquitted, the case of the petitioner is at better footing because she was not challaned by the police as a result of investigation but, after recording statements of P.W.-7 Nathulal and P.W.-8 Smt. Geeta, upon application filed under Section 319, Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken against the petitioner. 6. It is thus obvious that the trial Court did not accept the testimony of P.W.-7 Nathulal and P.W.-8 Smt. Geeta even for convicting the main accused, then, their testimony cannot be relief upon for the purpose of proceeding against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498A and 304B, I.P.C., in the alternative, Section 302, I.P.C. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, order dated 12.09.1997 is not sustainable in the eye of law at the stage. 7. Hence, this revision petition is allowed. Order dated 12.09.1997 passed by Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.49/97 is hereby quashed and set aside.Revision allowed. *******