JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition, challenge is made to the orders dated 17/04/2009 and 01/05/2009 passed by the trial court and revisional court, respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the FIR, thorough investigation was conducted by the police. The charge-sheet was not filed against the petitioner after considering the evidence. The court did not take cognisance by invoking Section 190 Cr.P.C. An application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was however filed after completion of evidence from prosecution side. The aforesaid application was allowed by taking cognisance against the petitioner. It was in ignorance of the contradictions in the evidence in regard to the role of the present petitioner. Few eye-witnesses did not name the petitioner and at the same time, others did not allege injury by the petitioner using an Axe. The cognisance can be taken by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. when material exists, which can lead to conviction. The courts below have failed to consider this aspect while passing the impugned-orders. Both the orders thus deserve to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the petition. It is submitted that after considering the evidence, cognisance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner. The injured has specifically named the petitioner for causing injury. In view of above, the impugned-orders may not be interfered with. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that after the FIR, thorough investigation was made by the police. The charge-sheet was not filed against petitioner. The application u/S.319 Cr.P.C. was filed after completion of evidence from prosecution side. The evidence so relied to find out the role of petitioner is having contradiction. The cognisance of offence on the application u/S.319 Cr.P.C. can be taken when the material exists, which may lead to conviction. The standard for taking cognisance at the initial stage, where only prima-facie case is to be seen, does not apply while considering the application u/S.319 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid aspect has been ignored by the courts below. Only one witness cannot be relied to allow application u/S.319 Cr.P.C. Few eye-witnesses have not named the petitioner for causing injuries to Dhanpati and others did not assign weapon-Axe to the petitioner. 6. Only one witness cannot be relied to allow application u/S.319 Cr.P.C. Few eye-witnesses have not named the petitioner for causing injuries to Dhanpati and others did not assign weapon-Axe to the petitioner. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, cognisance of the offence taken against the petitioner cannot be allowed to sustain. 7. In the result, this criminal misc.petition u/S.482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The impugned-orders dated 17/04/2009 & 01/05/2009 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mahwa, District Dausa & learned Sessions Judge, Dausa, respectively are quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******