JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned as well as the record of the case. 2. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 15.4.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, Distt. Barmer in revision, whereby, the learned revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Siwana, Distt. Barmer taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 143 and 436 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in this case, the F.I.R. was submitted by Mohabbat Singh, who is inimical to the petitioners. He submits that in the F.I.R., the sole eye witness who was named as having seen the incident was Ratan Singh. Ratan Singh upon being examined.under Section 161 Cr.P.C., named only accused petitioner Uda Ram as the person whom he saw running away from the cabin of Mohabbat Singh. Learned counsel contends that the complainant's son Raju Singh was also examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he revealed to the Investigating Officer that the cabin caught fire because of the incense sticks which were left burning in the cabin. Learned counsel submits that the accused have been falsely implicated because of the previous enmity. Learned counsel submits that the police after thorough investigation gave a F.R. in the matter. The complainant submitted a protest petition and examined witnesses in support of the protest petition, but the most important witness Raju Singh, the complainant's own son was not examined in support of the protest petition. He further submits that the; witness Ratan Singh, who is the solitary eye witness put forward by the prosecution has given absolutely unbelievable statement that all the six accused persons set fire to the fence. Learned counsel submits that Ratan Singh has not stated in his statement recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C., that the police did not record his version faithfully. As per the learned counsel, the prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of any of the accused apart from accused petitioner Uda Ram. He therefore submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners apart from accused petitioner Uda Ram is absolutely illegal. 4. As per the learned counsel, the prosecution has not been able to establish the identity of any of the accused apart from accused petitioner Uda Ram. He therefore submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioners apart from accused petitioner Uda Ram is absolutely illegal. 4. Shri R.J. Punia, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and contends that the accused have conjointly committed the offence of arson. 5. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at the bar and.upon perusal of the documents placed on record, including the negative Final Report, it is evident that the first informant in his F.I.R. has specifically stated that accused petitioner Uda Ram set fire to the fence. Though, the other petitioners were named in the F.I.R. but upon a perusal of the statement of the sole eye witness Ratan Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is revealed that he has not named anybody else apart from accused petitioner Uda Ram as being the arsonists. The complainant's son Raju Singh was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he has clearly stated that the names of the accused were given out by his father in the F.I.R., because of the previous enmity. Ratan Singh has been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and he has stated that all the accused were present when the fence was set on fire but he has not made any aspersion against the Investigating Officer who has recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which no person apart from accused petitioner Uda Ram was implicated. Thus, there is no convincing or even prima facie evidence on the record, which can justify the order taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 143 and 436 I.P.C., against the petitioners apart from accused petitioner Uda Ram. 6. Resultantly, this misc. petition succeeds in part. The order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Siwana, Distt. Barmer taking cognizance qua the accused petitioner - Uda Ram for the offences under Sections 143 and 436 I.P.C. is firmed. But at the same time, the aforesaid order taking cognizance qua the petitioners - Nagu Ram, Triloka Ram, Hari Ram, Hasta Ram and Bhopa Ra hereby quashed.Petition partly allowed. *******