JUDGMENT : Knox, J. The case before me was called up by this Court in exercise of its powers under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. One Ram Prasad instituted a complaint against six persons on the 7th March, 1913. The complainant was examined and, immediately upon his examination, came an order by the learned Magistrate directing an inquiry by the police. This order appears to have been made under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is, however, a wrong order. The law intends that upon the examination of a complainant the Magistrate, who had examined the complainant, shall exercise his judgment as to how far the complaint appears to be a true complaint or the reverse. If the Magistrate considers that the complaint is entitled to consideration, it is his duty then and there to proceed under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, the Magistrate starts upon the right and healthy presumption that a person who has taken the trouble to come to court and to take the further step of instituting a complaint, is acting upon knowledge or information which he believes to be true. To start with the presumption that a complaint is false is not a sound method of procedure. Hence it is that when a Magistrate is not satisfied as to the truth of a complaint, the law requires him to record his reasons for not being so satisfied. Large powers are given in section 203 of the Code to a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint without issuing a process at all against the accused person. But, as is pointed out in the case of Baidya Nath Singh v. Muspratt, [1887] I.L.R., 14 Cal., 141 at 144, certain conditions are laid down and these conditions must be strictly fulfilled in making an order under section 203. A Magistrate who is not satisfied as to the truth of a complaint, can either (a) enquire into the case himself or (b) direct a previous local investigation to be made by a public officer or (c) direct a similar local investigation by a police officer or (d) a previous local investigation by such other person not being a Magistrate or public officer for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint. When the report comes back from the officer so selected, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint but not until he has examined the complainant and considered the result of the investigation. In such case he is bound again to briefly record his reasons of dismissing the complaint. The Code does not appear to contemplate that after a local investigation is made, the Magistrate should enquire into the case himself. The truth or falsehood of the complaint has, so to speak, gone through two sieves. It has been sifted by the Magistrate. It has been sifted by the officer selected to make the previous local investigation. If, as in the present case, the complainant protests against the investigation made by the officer selected, it is better that process should issue compelling the attendance of the person complained against and that the evidence adduced by the complainant be heard in his presence. For, should the complaint, after these proceedings, appear to be vexatious, frivolous or false, action can be taken against the complainant and, in most cases, should be taken. For the Magistrate to hold an enquiry after a local investigation will most probably lead to the manufacture of evidence and in any case it will cause much inconvenience and annoyance to witnesses, who will have to leave their avocations and attend the police officer and the court three times over. This is a point often overlooked. In the present case, there had been a previous local investigation and, after examining the complainant and considering the report, the learned Magistrate says that it is quite clear that this is a false case and he, therefore, dismisses it. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that a subinspector, who does not appear to be a party to the case, desires to institute proceedings under section 176 and also under section 211 or 182 of the Penal Code, 1860. This being so, the learned Sessions Judge was right in holding that the complainant should be allowed the opportunity, to which he is entitled, to prosecute his own case. The only point of his order to which exception can be taken is that the accused be not sent for. His order is somewhat ambiguous but it is open to this meaning and I have little doubt that it will be so interpreted by the Magistrate. The only point of his order to which exception can be taken is that the accused be not sent for. His order is somewhat ambiguous but it is open to this meaning and I have little doubt that it will be so interpreted by the Magistrate. The accused should be sent for and the complainant allowed to produce his witnesses in their presence. I hold that the Magistrate, when he has once acted under section 202 and ordered an investigation by a person other than himself, is precluded from following his local investigation up by an enquiry in the absence of the accused. I He may dismiss the complaint, as he did in the present case. The Sessions Judge may then if he consider it expedient—and it was expedient in the present case—direct the District Magistrate by himself or by any other Magistrate subordinate to him, to make further enquiry into the complaint which has been dismissed under section 203. In such circumstances, it is best for all concerned that the enquiry should at once take the lines laid down in Chapter XVII of the Code. Let the learned Sessions Judge's orders be altered so far and let the record be returned. 2. Further enquiry ordered.