NARAYAN SHUKLA,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajiva Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. The petitioner has challenged the summoning order dated 4th of September, 2009 on the ground that the proviso of section 202 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been followed. 2.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the peti ­tioner submits that the complainant was under obligation to produce all the wit ­nesses as listed in the list of witnesses and the learned Magistrate was under obligation to examine all of them, but in the mat ­ter only three witnesses has been examined leaving some other witnesses, whereas I am of the view that it is not necessary to examine all of them as listed in the list of witnesses. The learned Magistrate has obliged to examine those witnesses, who were produced before him from the list of witnesses and if on the basis of their wit ­nesses, if he satisfies for commission of of ­fence, he can take cognizance on that of ­fence and proceed with the case. Therefore, I do not find error in the order. The petition is dismissed. How ­ever, it is provided that if the petitioner appears before the Court below within one month and moves application for bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously by the Courts below. Petition Dismissed.;