This is a reference under S. 438, Cri­minal Procedure Code from the Court of the Addi­tional Sessions Judge, Lower Assam Districts. (2) The reference arises out of a criminal case No. 50C of 1953 under S. 447, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner before the learned Additional Ses­sions Judge were found guilty and convicted un­der S. 447, Indian Penal Code and they were or­dered to pay a fine of Rs. 20/-'each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten days. The petitioners were also convicted under S. 143 but no separate sentences were passed under this head of the charge. (3) The case for the complainant was that he had a plot of land measuring 41 bighas at Baria-bari. It was his ancestral land and it had fallen to his share. He had grown cheena. Khasari, Kalai and paddy. The accused (petitioners) came in a body, trespassed on the land and damaged his standing crop. The accused claimed Ejmali pro­prietary rights over the land in dispute. The peti­tioners were found guilty. They invoked the re-visional jurisdiction of the sessions court and as­sailed the correctness of the conviction by a re­vision petition. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the convictions of the petitioners are not sustainable on the ground that the learned trial Magistrate after examining the complainant on 12th January, 1953 held local enquiry on 15th January before issuing processes for the attendance of the accused. From the order of the learned Magistrate dated 9th January, 1953 it appears that he found marks of ploughing on the land. On that date he sum­moned the petitioners under Ss. 143/447/427 I. P. C. In the view of the learned Additional' Sessions Judge the fact that the learned trial Magistrate went to the scene of occurrence and made a local enquiry disqualified him from trying the case. He observes that it was not fair on the part of the trying Magistrate to make a local enquiry on the scene of occurrence before the trial commenced. He thinks the local enquiry vitiates the trial. (4) The learned judge is entirely wrong in the view that he has taken of the matter. Under S. 202, Cr P. C. it was open to the learned Magistrate to enquire into the case himself after examining the complainant. This was one of the courses permitted to him by S. 202. He thinks the local enquiry vitiates the trial. (4) The learned judge is entirely wrong in the view that he has taken of the matter. Under S. 202, Cr P. C. it was open to the learned Magistrate to enquire into the case himself after examining the complainant. This was one of the courses permitted to him by S. 202. Enquiry within the meaning of this section is not limited to and does not necessarily mean an enquiry by examining witnesses or by holding investigation into the case in any particular form. It was open to him to enquire into the case in any manner that he could have adopted if the accused had been in attendance. Going to the scene of occurrence and making a local enquiry was within his competence. In fact being a first class Magistrate he could have directed a local enquiry or investigation to be made by any Magistrate subordinate to him, by a police officer or by such other person as he thought fit. He could direct an enquiry and investigation to be made on the spot. It follows that what he could direct others to do he could do himself also. He thus was fully competent to hold the local enquiry as he did under 6. 202. (5) Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with cases in which judges or Magistrates may not try cases in which they are personally in­terested. The explanation to the section provides that a Judge or Magistrate shall not be deemed a party, or personally interested, within the mean­ing of this section, to or in any case by reason only that he is a Municipal Commissioner or otherwise concerned therein in a public capacity, or by reason only that he has viewed the place in which an off­ence is alleged to have been committed, or any other place in which any other transaction material to the case is alleged to have occurred, and made an inquiry in connection with the case. The explanation reproduced above would ful­ly cover the circumstances of this case. The fact of an enquiry on the scene of the occurrence and its inspection does not make the judge or the Magis­trate interested in the case within the meaning of S. 556. The explanation reproduced above would ful­ly cover the circumstances of this case. The fact of an enquiry on the scene of the occurrence and its inspection does not make the judge or the Magis­trate interested in the case within the meaning of S. 556. The learned Judge failed to consider the effect of the explanation when holding that the learned Magistrate should not have heard the case after the local enquiry. The recommendation made by him receives no support from the statute or the authority. The reference is therefore reject­ed and the revision petition is dismissed. V.B.B. Reference rejected.