Tyagi, J.—This is a reference made by the learned District Magistrate, Bikaner, recommending that the order of discharge recorded in favour of the accused on 29.6.62 by the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, 1st Class, Bikaner may be quashed and a direction be issued that the trial of the accused may proceeded after the framing of a charge under secs. 332/353, Indian Penal Code. 2. Kanhaiyalal complainant is a senior teacher in the Sadul Multi-Purpose Higher Secondary School, Bikaner. Accused Usman Ghani was a student of 10th Class in 1962 in that school. On 12th May, 1962 when the result of the annual examination was to be announced the accused is alleged to have gone to the complainant and threatened him that if the accused failed in Hindi which was his subject then he would be given a beating and he would not reach his home safely. The result was announced on that very day at 5 P.M. and the accused was declared as an unsuccessful candidate at the examination. When the complainant Kanhaiyalal left the school premises for his home, it is said that he was caught by the accused and one other person and that he was given a beating with sticks by both of them. A report of the occurrence was lodged by the Head Master to the police station and after investigation a challan under sec. 332/ 353 IPC against the accused was submitted in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner City. Owing to the partial separation of the judiciary from the executive the case was eventually transferred to the file of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate First Class, Bikaner, who by his order dated 26th of September, 1962, discharged the accused of offences under sec. 332/353, Indian Penal Court, and ordered that the trial under sec. 323, Indian Penal Code may start. It is against this order of the learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate First Class Bikaner that a revision was preferred by the complainant in the Court of the District Magistrate, Bikaner, who, after giving hearing to both the parties, has made the present reference. 3. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has supported the reference and it has been opposed by Mr. Ahmed Bux on behalf of Usman Ghani. 4. 3. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has supported the reference and it has been opposed by Mr. Ahmed Bux on behalf of Usman Ghani. 4. The learned Munsiff-Magistrate recorded the discharge order on the ground that the Investigation Officer did not place on record any document or information to establish prima facie that at the time when the complainant was belaboured by the accused he was acting in the discharge of his official duty either as an examiner or as an announcer of the result, nor was there any circumstance placed by the prosecution to suggest that it was as a consequence of such an act of the complainant that the accused got enraged and inflicted injuries to the complainant and therefore in his opinion he could not find prima facie case to proceed with the trial for charges under sec. 332/353 I.P.C. In my opinion the learned Magistrate has fallen in to error in arriving at the aforesaid conclusion. The learned Deputy Government Advocate has drawn my attention to certain documents produced by the prosecution before the trial court, the copies whereof are alleged to have been supplied to the accused also, from the perusal of which it is quite clear that the complainant acted as an examiner of Hindi papers of the accused, and also he acted as an announcer of the result. In view of the presence of such documents it was not open for the learned Magistrate to have felt that there was no information on the record to warrant the prosecution of the accused under secs. 332 and 353 IPC. These two documents are (1) application of the complainant submitted to the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate City, Bikaner, on 14.5.62 alleging that accused Usman Ghani being son of a rich contractor is being shielded by the police, and it is in this application that the fact of his announcing the result on 12th of May, 1962 was mentioned, (2) a letter from the Head Master, Government Multipurpose Higher Secondary School, Bikaner to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kotgate, Bikaner, dated 16th of May, 1962 in which it has been clearly mentioned that the examiner of the compulsory subject of Hindi for 10th Class in which the accused obtained only 25 marks out of 100, was the complainant Kanhaiya Lal Upadhaya. It so appears that while looking to the papers produced by the prosecution before the court the learned Magistrate lost sight of these two documents which furnish information on the subject to fulfil the requirements of sec. 332 IPC. At this stage, it may be noted, that the duty of the Court was to see whether there was a prima facie case made out by the prosecution to proceed with the trial or not and it was not a stage where the court could sit over the judgment to find out if the accused could be convicted under sec. 332/353 I.P.C. If the Court discovered any lecuna in the investigation which could be filled in at a later stage of the trial if the law permitted the prosecution to do so then it was not open to the Magistrate to record the order of discharge. Learned counsel for the accused could not how ever point out to any provision of the law to show that there is a bar for the prosecution to bring on record at a late stage of the trial this fact that the complainant was the examiner of the Hindi paper. If this aspect of the question, some how, escaped the notice of the investigating officer during investigation stage, which in this case cannot be said to be missing then it does not provide a ground to the court to discharge the accused at the initial stage of the trial. I may add that the reasons given by the learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate to record the order of discharge in favour of the accused at this stage is ex facie erroneous, and I am sure, if proper care had been taken by the learned Magistrate to carefully scrutinise the record, he could not have fallen in that error. 5. It may also be pointed out that the learned Magistrate has also erred in thinking that the complainant was not acting in the discharge of his duties as a public servant at the time when he was given a beating by the accused, because he was going to his home from the school after completing his official duty. It may be noted that while framing a charge under sec. 332 I.P.C. it is not essential that the hurt should be caused to the public servant while he is actually discharging his official duty. It may be noted that while framing a charge under sec. 332 I.P.C. it is not essential that the hurt should be caused to the public servant while he is actually discharging his official duty. If the beating is given as a consequence of anything done by him in the discharge of his duties as public servant then it was sufficient to attract the application of sec. 332 I.P.C. My attention has been drawn to an authority of the Allahabad High Court in Jageshwar Dayal vs. The State(l) where it has been held that the offence under sec. 332 IPC can be committed not only when a person is assaulted while he is discharging public duty but also when he is assaulted in consequence of the discharge of his duty. The expression "in consequence" as used in sec. IPC and sec. 353 I.P.C., in my opinion, includes the motive which actuates the accused to cause voluntary hurt or assault to a public servant. In the instant case, the prosecution has placed enough material to show that the motive for giving the beating to the complainant was that he failed to carry out the wishes of the accused and did not give to the accused pass marks in the compulsory subject of Hindi. Under such circumstances, when there was sufficient material before the court to find out a prima facie case against the accused under sec. 332/353 IPC, the learned Magistrate should not have shut the trial under sec. 332/353 IPC at that stage. I am of the opinion that the facts of this case did not warrant the discharge order as made by the learned Munsiff Magistrate at this stage. 6. I would, however, like to mention that the court should have taken greater degree of care to scrutinise the material placed before it by the prosecution and should not have to disposed of the matter in the light manner it has been done in this case. 7. The reference is allowed. The order of discharge recorded by the learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Bikaner City dated 29.6.62 is quashed. The case is sent back to the file of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Bikaner with a direction to take such further action in the matter as the law requires.