Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) By way of the instant misc. petition, the petitioner State has approached this Court against the order dated 24.4.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhadra in Revision No. 50/2006 whereby the Revisional Court quashed the order dated 26.7.2006 passed by learned A.C.J.M. Bhadra in Cr. Case No. 390/2006 taking cognizance against the respondents no. 1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 22, 23, 35 & 29 P.N.D.T. Act, 1994 and Sections 4 & 5 (2, 3, 4) M.T.P. Act, 1971 and Sections 419 and 420 IPC.
(2.) I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order under challenge.
(3.) A perusal of the Revisional Court's order reveals that the Revisional Court relied upon certain photo copies of the documents filed by the accused along with the revision for reaching to a conclusion that the accused were carrying on business of ultra sound under a valid licence. Suffice it to say that while examining a matter arising out of a challenge given to an order taking cognizance, all that the Revisional Court is required to see is as to whether the order taking cognizance satisfies the requirements of law and has been passed with due application of mind to the facts of the case and whether or not the essential ingredients of the offences are made out. It is not permissible for the Revisional Court to go into the defence of the accused to interfere with the order taking cognizance. Such exercise cannot even be conducted at the stage of charge as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2003) 2 SCC 711 . Until the stage of framing charge only the documents filed by the prosecution can be looked into by the Court. In this background, the order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the Revisional Court whereby the Revisional Court quashed the order taking cognizance relying upon the documents submitted by the accused is perse illegal and amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Otherwise also, the documents which were submitted by the accused were photo copies and could not have been relied upon as per law.;