Dinker Lal Mehta, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the court has jurisdiction to take cognizance Under Section 319 Cr.PC only after recording the evidence in the court. It is not necessary to record the evidence even when cognizance can be taken after recording the evidence of one of the witnesses.
3. He has invited may attention to the case of Sheoram Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1982 Cr.LR (Raj.) 637.
4. This Court has interpreted the meaning of the word 'evidence'. This Court held that the 'evidence' means statements recorded before court of enquiry or trial. It does not include statements recorded by police or recorded at instance of police. This court also held that cognizance can be taken on a single statement.
5. In the instant case, it was submitted that no statement has been recorded either during the inquiry or trial and as such the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 14-2-84 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sikar and the order dated 4-5-83 passed by learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sikar set aside. The case may be sent back to the trial court for proceeding according to law.
7. The trial court will have a right to take the cognizance afresh after recording the evidence of all or any of the witnesses.
8. The record of this case may also be sent back immediately.
9. The revision petition is disposed off accordingly.