Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
(2.) The petitions being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos.1898/2011 and 1196/2011 have been filed challenging the order dated 12.05.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Revision Petition No.3/2011, whereby, the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision of the petitioners filed against the accusation of offences read out to them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar by his order dated 04.02.2011. The accusation which was read out to the petitioners was for the offences under Sections 353, 504, 147 & 149 IPC. The petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1195/2011 has been filed directly challenging the order dated 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the order of accusation is revisable, the learned revisional court has committed a grave error in holding the revision to be not maintainable. He submits that in this case (a) no document was supplied to the petitioners by the Income Tax Officials, (b) no independent witness has been cited in the FIR and (c) the FIR has been filed after a great delay.;