J.C.MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri S.A.N. Shah, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G. A. None appeared for the complainant even after the list being revised.
(2.) XTH Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kanpur vide order dated 25- 8-84 had sum­moned the accused. The learned Magistrate found incriminating evidence against accused and, therefore rejecting final report summoned the accused under Sections 147, 452 and 323, I.P.C. The revisional Court set aside the order on the ground that the Magistrate had no juris­diction to summon the accused, after sub­mission of the final report. The view taken by the revisional court was that after sub­mission of final report the Magistrate could not summon the accused without recording the additional evidence under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. The view taken by the revisional court is patently illegal. The settled view is that the Magistrate is empowered to summon the accused if from the evidence collected during investigation prima facie offence is made out. He is not bound by the con­clusion drawn by the Investigating Officer. The order passed by the revisional court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. The revision is allowed. The order dated 28th October, 1985 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Revision No, 87 of 1984, Durga Prasad and others v. State and others is set aside. The stay stands and is hereby va­cated, The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. Revision allowed.;