- (1.) RAJESHWAR Singh, J. This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C.
(2.) THE facts are that one complaint was filed under Sections 379 and 427 I. P. C. THE learned Magistrate recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. THEse statements disclosed commission of an offence but after making some discussion the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Cr. P. C. THE complaint went in revision to the Sessions Court. THE Sessions Court observed : "i am of the view that the learned Magistrate ought to have decided the question of summoning the accused persons only on the available evidence whether it was sufficient to summon the accused persons. THE mandate of the law under Section 202 does not necessarily imply that the unassailed testimony of the witness should not be taken into consideration and should be discarded on the mere flimsy grounds or on the grounds that would have been taken subsequently only when the accused persons could have been tried. " The Sessions Court then ordered ; "the application in revision is allowed. The order dated 2-12-86 is quashed and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed afresh in the matter and shall make further inquiry in this connection. " When the matter went to the learned Magistrate he passed an order that he perused the evidence on record in the light of the judgment passed in revision and he summoned the accused persons. Against this order the accused filed a revision. That has been dismissed and now the accused have approach ed this court through this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. praying that order summoning them and order of the Session Court be quashed.
(3.) THE only argument of the applicant is that the Sessions Court ordered further inquiry and directed the Magistrate to proceed afresh ; so the Magistate could not summon the accused on the same evidence without recording further evidence. In fact the learned Sessions Court has passed order under Section 398, Cr. P. C. It merely directs that the Sessions Judge may direct further inquiry into any complaint. It does not say that a fresh inquiry should be directed. I have reproduced above the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment before passing the order. There too the Sessions Judge said that the learned Magistrate should have decided the question of summoning the accused persons only on the available evidence and it was not necessary to reject unassailed testimony of the witness and it should have been taken into consideration. So it appears that the intention of the Session Judge only to order further inquiry.;