- (1.) K. N. Sinha, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the impugned order.
(2.) IT was first submitted that the mandatory provision as provided under Section 204 Cr. P. C. has not been followed. Section 204 Cr. P. C. deal with the issue of process where the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence. Section 204 (2) Cr. P. C. lays down that no summons or warrants shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. I have perused the impugned order and find that the learned Magistrate has already directed the complainant to file three copies of the complaint and a list of prosecution witnesses within a week. Section 204 (2) Cr. P. C. does not bar the taking of cognizance prior to filing of said documents. It only lays down that if the cognizance is taken, no process shall be issued unless the provision of Section 204 (2) Cr. P. C. is complied with. The learned Magistrate has earlier directed the complainant to take steps within a week. Of course unless steps are taken by filing the copy of complaint, list of witnesses and the process fee, no process shall be issued. Thus this ground of non- compliance of Section 204 Cr. P. C. does not hold good. It was next submitted that the finding arrived at cannot be relied on at this stage. Section 202 Cr. P. C. provides that the learned Magistrate has to see whether there exists sufficient ground for taking cognizance or not. No thread bare examination of witnesses is necessary. Thus, I find no force in this revision. The revision is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. Revision dismissed. .;