Judgment :- 1. The 1st accused in C.C. No. 476/1953 on the file of the First Class Magistrate's Court at Punalur is the petitioner. Himself and the 2nd accused were tried for the offence punishable under S. 354 of the Penal Code. Of the 14 witnesses included in the charge-sheet, witnesses Nos. 13 and 14 were Police Officers who were in charge of the investigation of the case. All the remaining 12 witnesses were examined by the Magistrate. After a due appreciation of the evidence of all these witnesses in the light of the outstanding circumstances and probabilities, the trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused. Accordingly the Magistrate discharged both the accused under S. 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State did not choose to challenge that order. But P.W. 1, whose modesty was alleged to have been outraged by the 1st accused, preferred a petition before the District Magistrate seeking a revision of the order discharging the accused. The learned District Magistrate accepted that petition and cancelled the impugned order and directed the First Class Magistrate under S. 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to proceed further with the trial of the case. The present revision petition is directed against the District Magistrate's order. 2. The District Magistrate has taken the view that the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate without examining the Police Officers is bad in law and cannot be sustained. According to him, the jurisdiction conferred by S. 253(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised only after examining all the prosecution witnesses. Sub-s. (1) of S. 253 runs as follows: T, upon taking all the evidence referred to in S. 252, and making such examination (if any) of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary, he finds that no case against the accused has been made out which, if rebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him". For understanding the true scope of the expression "taking all the evidence referred to in S. 252" one has necessarily to examine the provisions contained in that section. For understanding the true scope of the expression "taking all the evidence referred to in S. 252" one has necessarily to examine the provisions contained in that section. Sub-s. (1) of that section states that: "When the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, such Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution". What will constitute the evidence in support of the prosecution is explained in sub-s. (2) which runs as follows: "The Magistrate shall ascertain, from the complainant or otherwise, the names of any person likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution, and shall summon to give evidence before himself such of them as he thinks necessary". It is thus clear that what is insisted on by Ss. 252 and 253 is the examination of all the witnesses likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case. It cannot be said that the Police Officers who are to give formal evidence regarding their investigation of the case, also come under this category. It is obvious that these Officers are not directly acquainted with the facts of the case. If is also significant to note that by sub-s. (2) of S. 252 a direction is given to the Magistrate to summon only such of the witnesses who may be able to give evidence about the facts of the case. Thus, it is not correct to say that the failure to examine the two Police Officers who had taken part in the investigation of the case, is an illegality vitiating the order of discharge passed by the trial Magistrate. The mere fact that the Magistrate has purported to act under sub-s. (1) of S. 253 cannot be a reason for ignoring altogether the provision contained in sub-s. (2) of the same section. Both the sub-sections have to be read together because it is clear that sub-s. (2) qualifies sub-s. (1). Sub-s. (2) states that: "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for any reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless". The reasons contemplated by this sub-section are contained in the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate. Sub-s. (2) states that: "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for any reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless". The reasons contemplated by this sub-section are contained in the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate. In fact, that order is seen to have been passed under S. 253 read as a whole. 3. The next ground which has prompted the District Magistrate to interfere with the order of discharge is that there has been no proper appreciation of the evidence on record by the trial Magistrate. There is no basis for this criticism. According to P.W. 1, she was decoyed from her husband's house by the 2nd accused, who is a servant of the 1st accused, at about 8 p.m. on 14.3.1953 on the false representation that her sister's husband wanted to talk to her about some urgent matter. She is stated to have accompanied the 2nd accused to a place a few furlongs away from her residence when the 1st accused appeared on the scene and caught hold of her and tried to forcibly drag her inside the neighbouring school. It has come out in evidence that there was already a rumour in the locality that the brother-in-law whom P.W.1 was going to meet was having illicit intimacy with her. This fact as also the fact that a young lady like P.W.1 chose to leave her residence during night time and to proceed in the company of a stranger like the 2nd accused and also the circumstance that the first information statement Ext. A about the alleged occurrence, was given only after the lapse of twelve days, weighed with the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of all the witnesses has been fully discussed and convincing reasons have been given for discarding their evidence as thoroughly unreliable. The conclusion reached as a result of such an appreciation of the evidence did not warrant any interference by the District Magistrate in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The order of discharge has to be left as it is. 4. The conclusion reached as a result of such an appreciation of the evidence did not warrant any interference by the District Magistrate in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The order of discharge has to be left as it is. 4. In the result this revision petition is allowed and in reversal of the order of the District Magistrate, the trial Magistrate's order discharging the accused under S. 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is restored. Allowed.