Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the complainant in C.C. No. 98 of 1957 in the court of the Sub-Magistrate, Karthigappally. 2. There was a private complaint by the appellant accusing nine persons of offences punishable under S.143 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not necessary to state very elaborately the points that the learned Magistrate has considered and given a finding against the appellant because the question that has been argued before us is a very short one. 3. The learned Sub-Magistrate, as stated earlier, has considered the evidence-oral and documentary-produced before him and has come to the conclusion that the appellant has not made out that possession of the properties in dispute was with him to enable him to sustain the complaint that he made, and on this view he dismissed the complaint as groundless and vexatious and acquitted the accused under S.245 cl. (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. This appeal has been filed after obtaining the necessary leave from this court. 5. Mr. Velayudhan Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Magistrate was bound to examine all the witnesses that the appellant was entitled to summon and appear before the court and that the action taken by the Magistrate under S.245 (1) is not warranted in the circumstances of this case. 6. That this ground of attack on the judgment is not well-founded will be seen by a reference to S.244 and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Clause (1) of S.244 provides that if the Magistrate does not convict the accused under S.243 or if the accused does not make such admission, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complaint (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence, The proviso to S.244 clause (1) is not material in this case. Clause (2) of S.244 provides that the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the complainant or accused, issue the summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. Clause (3) of the said section makes provision for the Magistrate requiring the party summoning any witnesses to deposit the reasonable expenses for summoning the witnesses. 7. Clause (3) of the said section makes provision for the Magistrate requiring the party summoning any witnesses to deposit the reasonable expenses for summoning the witnesses. 7. S.245 (1) states that if the Magistrate upon taking "the evidence referred to in S.244 and such further evidence as he may take of his own motion, and after examining the accused, if he thinks fit, finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal. S.245(1) clearly refers to the Magistrate coming to a conclusion upon taking the evidence referred to in S.244. Clause (1) of S.244 is very specific that the duty of the Magistrate is to hear the complaint, if any, and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. 8. Clause (2) of S.244 gives power to the Magistrate to consider any application that may be filed by the complainant to issue summons to any witness to be examined by the complainant or for summoning any document at his instance. 9. In this case there is nothing on record to show that the Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of clause (1) of S.244. It is evident from the records that the Magistrate has heard the complainant and also taken all such evidence as was produced by the complainant in support of the prosecution. But it is contended by Mr. Velayudhan Nair that his client had filed a list of witnesses before the Magistrate for being summoned at his expense and that the Magistrate was wrong in not examining these witnesses before coming to a conclusion. 10. In our opinion, this contention of Mr. Velayudhan Nair is not well-founded, because under clause (2) of S.244 the Magistrate has got the power to consider the application of the complainant and can order that only if he thinks fit. As stated earlier, there is nothing on record to show that the evidence produced before the Magistrate was not considered by him before giving a finding against the appellant. In our opinion, the Magistrate has strictly complied with the provisions of S.244 (1) and his not taking action under S.244 (2) was perfectly justified and within his competence. 11. As stated earlier, there is nothing on record to show that the evidence produced before the Magistrate was not considered by him before giving a finding against the appellant. In our opinion, the Magistrate has strictly complied with the provisions of S.244 (1) and his not taking action under S.244 (2) was perfectly justified and within his competence. 11. All the other points arising in the criminal appeal are pure questions of fact which have been decided by the learned Magistrate by a careful consideration of the entire evidence before him and as such do not warrant any interference. 12. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.