MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the petition was finally heard at this stage. After having taken cognizance of offence under Sec. 21/92 of the Factory Act, the learned Magistrate summoned the present applicant and other co-accused, as accused in the present case. The accused persons challenged the order of taking cognizance of offence and summoning them as accused, by preferring the Revision Application under Sec. 397 Cr.PC. before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas (Distt. Alwar). The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, relying upon the case of Neeraj Kumar Vs. State 1996(2) WLC, page 215 , Lallu Lal Agrawal Vs. Damodar Prasad Gupta and Ors., C.LR. 1997 (Raj.) page 185 and Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. State C.LR. (Raj.) page 205 , held that as the impugned order was an interlocutory order, the Revision Petition was barred under Sec. 397 Cr.PC. against such order. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the case of Sessions Judge Sawaimadhopur Vs. Dashrath, 1996 RRC, 592 , the Division Bench of this Court has held that Revision Petition under Sec. 397 Cr.PC. against an order of taking cognizance was maintainable.

(2.) In view of the above discussion the impugned order is set-aside and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarhbas (Distt. Alwar) is directed to restore the revision petition of the applicant before him and to dispose of the same according to law after hearing both the sides.

(3.) The Revision Petitions by other accused persons, who have not come before this Court but who had also been summoned as accused in the present case and had challenged the same before the learned Sessions Judge, shall also stand restored before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and they shall also be decided according to law after hearing both the sides.