Nisha Gupta, J. - (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.;