Judgment :- 1. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Sub Magistrate, Tirur alleging that he was in possession of the property mentioned in the complaint in R.S. 35/11 of Rayirmangalam amsom, Tirur Taluk, that on 20-1-1964 the two accused trespassed into the paramba and demolished a small but belonging to him and thereby committed offences punishable under S.447 and 426, I.P.C. The sworn statement was taken and the case was numbered as C.C. 77 of 1964. But he postponed the issue of process and sent the case to the Sub Inspector of Police, Tanur for enquiry under S.202 Cr. P.C. The Sub Inspector registered a case, questioned witnesses and sent the record of investigation to the Sub Magistrate. On a perusal of the records, learned Magistrate ordered that the case would proceed against the first accused and ordered summons to be issued to him. As regards the second accused, learned Magistrate stated that he is not a necessary party to this case and ordered that summons need not be issued to him. I do not understand what the Magistrate means by saying that one of the accused in a complaint is not a necessary party. The order purports to be one of dismissal of the complaint against him under S.203 Cr. P.C., even though the Magistrate has not specifically stated so. 2. The matter was taken up in revision under S.436 Cr. P.C., to the District Magistrate, Kozhikode, who without directing his attention and giving independent thought to the points involved in the case dismissed the petition observing, "The learned Sub Magistrate has given reasons for his order that summons need not be issued against the second accused. I do not find any ground to interfere with this order". Hardly sufficient even if it is an order on a revision petition. 3. Discussing the scope of an inquiry under S.202 Cr. P.C. the Supreme Court in a recent case in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose (AIR. 1963 S.C.1430) stated that it is true that one of the objects behind the provisions of S.202 Cr. P.C., is to enable the Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face an obviously frivolous complaint. 1963 S.C.1430) stated that it is true that one of the objects behind the provisions of S.202 Cr. P.C., is to enable the Magistrate to scrutinise carefully the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein as accused from being called upon to face an obviously frivolous complaint. Whether the complaint is frivolous or not has, at that stage, necessarily to be determined on the basis of the material placed before him by the complainant. Whatever defence the accused may have can only be enquired into at the trial. An enquiry under S.202 can in no sense be characterised as a trial for the simple reason that in law there can be but one trial for an offence. 4. In this connection the observations of the Supreme Court in the case in Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji (AIR. 1960 SC. 1113 at p. 1116) may usefully be quoted: "The enquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint; that is, for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify the issue of process and commencement of proceedings against the person concerned. The section does not say that a regular trial for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage; for the person complained against can be legally called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has issued and he is put on trial". 5. For determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is "sufficient ground for process" and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. Decisions have laid down that the object of the provisions of S.202 is to enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether process should be issued or not and to remove from his mind any hesitation that he may have felt upon the mere perusal of the complaint and the consideration of the complainant's evidence on oath. 6. Decisions have laid down that the object of the provisions of S.202 is to enable the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether process should be issued or not and to remove from his mind any hesitation that he may have felt upon the mere perusal of the complaint and the consideration of the complainant's evidence on oath. 6. Now on a perusal of the statements recorded from the Amin and the witnesses, what I find is that the civil suit referred to by the courts below is O.S. 84 of 1955 in respect of an entirely different property situated in R.S. 37/13. The property concerned in this case is R.S. 35/11 and not R.S. 37/13. The case filed by the first accused against Saidali and another and on which a case was registered by the police is said to be in respect of R.S. 37/13. It is the property in R.S. 37/13 that the Amin is alleged to have delivered over to the first accused's wife in execution of the decree in O.S. 84/55. In the course of the investigation the second accused who is the Head Constable of the police station went to R.S. 35/11 and demolished a shed which he thought was unauthorisedly put up by the accused in that case and entrusted the articles on kychit. The demolition of the shed being thus undisputed, the complainant has to be given an opportunity to prove that the shed demolished really belongs to him and is in his possession and that the first accused has no right over it. Whether the head constable had any justification in going to an entirely different property and demolishing the shed is a matter which can only be properly decided at the trial and I express no opinion about it at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question whether the act was in the discharge of his official duties and could be justified or whether the act was done under a bonafide belief that he was doing the right thing or as the learned State Prosecutor suggested whether a prosecution could be launched without sanction of the State Government are all matters for decision after the accused enters appearance to answer the charge. Learned Magistrate therefore ought to have issued process to both the accused and gone on with the trial. Learned Magistrate therefore ought to have issued process to both the accused and gone on with the trial. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 7. In the result the order of the Sub Magistrate is set aside and I direct the District Magistrate himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him to make further inquiry into the complaint which has been dismissed under S.203 Cr. P.C. Revision petition is allowed. Allowed.