JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of learned counsel for parties the matter has been heard finally at admission stage. 2. The aforesaid revision petition has been filed by petitioner against the order dated 2.2.2003, whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 166, 174, 188 and 222 I.P.C., upon the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1. 3. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is non-sustainable in the eyes of law as the same has been passed in violation of provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The warrant so issued was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, and he had no intention to disobey the order passed by the Magistrate. The petitioner was not available in jail premises. According to Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Rules, 1951 the accused could not be allowed to enter in jail after the sum-set. The accused was never produced before him. 4. From the perusal of the impugned order, and the original complaint filed by the complainant, it is clear that on 6.12.2002, one accused Darshan Singh was remanded to Judicial Custody, and it was also ordered by the concerned Magistrate that accused be admitted in prison and judicial warrant be obtained on 7.12.2002, as on 6.12.2002 it was holiday. It was reported that on 6.12.2002, the accused Darshan Singh was not admitted in prison. Thereupon a notice was issued to the petitioner, and after giving an opportunity of hearing, the complaint has been presented, on which cognizance under Sections 166, 168, 174 and 222 I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioner. 5. Accordingly to Rule 216 of the Rajasthan Jail Manual, it was obligatory on the part of prison authorities to admit a prisoner in jail at any hour in compliance of the order of the Magistrate. 6. In the present case, it is clear from the complaint itself that special order was passed by the Magistrate that prisoner should be admitted in jail. But the petitioner did not obey the order, and hence the complaint has been filed. After perusal of the material available on record, and appreciating the whole situation of the case, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance. But the petitioner did not obey the order, and hence the complaint has been filed. After perusal of the material available on record, and appreciating the whole situation of the case, the learned trial Court has taken cognizance. The contention of the petitioner that he has no intention, or he is having protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. are the defences, which can be taken at appropriate stage. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 7. Consequent:y, the revision petition stands dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. 8. The record of the trial Court he"sent back immediately.Revision petition dismissed. *******