JUDGMENT : Das, J. - Both these application are directed against an order of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, directing a further enquiry to be made on the complaint filed by Bhagaban Tripathi, opposite party in both the revisions. The facts that gave rise to these petitions may be stated as follows: The complainant had a mango tree in his Bari on plot No. 65 in Mouza Muraripur which was fenced on all sides. The Petitioner Raghunath Patra in Criminal Revision No. 290 of 1965 is the Khasmahal Officer in Darpan Anchal. Bhagabat Panda, Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 261 of 1965 is a person who was engaged in carrying some block metals in a truck by the side of the said plot of the complainant. As some branches of the mango tree standing on the said plot were overhanging the road, the Petitioner Bhagabat Panda found it inconvenient for him to ply his truck. On 7-3-1964 he made an application to the Tahasildar who started a Miscellaneous Case (No. 15 of 1964) inviting objections from the public, by 13-3-1964. On 14-3-1964, the date of occurrence, Raghunath Patra the Tahasildar alongwith the other accused persons came to the spot. He gave the first stroke on the mango tree standing on the Bari of the complainant and the other accused persons followed him and cut down the tree. When the complainant protested, he was abused in filthy language and was threatened with arrest if he offered any obstruction. The complainant alleges that the accused persons not only cut the mango tree, but they also cut down the branches of Borne other trees and removed the boundary stones. He filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Jajpur. He was examined on 4-4-1964. As the Petitioner Raghunath Patra was said to be a Government servant of gazetted rank, the Sub-divisional Magistrate thought it necessary to make an enquiry before taking any further action, in order to find out if the act was or was done under the colour of his office so as to require sanction u/s 197 Code of Criminal Procedure. He accordingly forwarded the complainant to R.C. Adhikari, Magistrate, 1st Class, for enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure. He accordingly forwarded the complainant to R.C. Adhikari, Magistrate, 1st Class, for enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure. On 30-4-1964 four prosecution witnesses including the complainant were examined and the enquiring Magistrate called upon the Petitioner Raghunath Patra, an accused in this case, to produce the connected papers relating to the opening of a road on the aforesaid plot No. 65 belonging to the complainant. Certain documents were filed before the enquiring Magistrate on 20-5-1964, such as the records in Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1964, which had been started on the application filed by the Petitioner Bhagabat Panda before the Tahasildar for cutting out the overhanging branches of the mango tree which were causing obstruction to the movement of his truck engaged in carrying black metals. The enquiring Magistrate submitted his report on 6-7-1964 to the Sub-divisional Magistrate saying that he did not find any prima facie evidence to summon the Tahasildar and others as accused u/s 379, Indian Penal Code as the action of the Tahasildar was done under colour of his office, and the other accused persons only acted under his orders and that the complainant may seek redress in proper Court of law as the matter involves some questions of title relating to plot No. 65 and the alleged village road. After submission of the report the case was posted to 10-7-1964 and then to 14-7-1964. As none appeared for the complainant it was put up on 20-7-1964 and after hearing the lawyers for the complainant, the Sub-divisional Magistrate posted the case to 29-7-1964 for orders. On that day the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissed the complainant in the following terms: None appears for the complainant on repeated calls. Perused the enquiry report submitted by R.C. Adhikari, Magistrate, 1st. Class. In the circumstances explained in the report, the complaint petition is dismissed u/s 203, Code of Criminal procedure. Against this order of dismissal the complainant carried a revision before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, who set aside the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and directed a further enquiry to be made. It is against this order of the Sessions Judge, the present applications have been filed. 2. It is clear from the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, dated 4-4-1964 that he sent the complaint to Sri R.C. Adhikari, a Magistrate, 1st. It is against this order of the Sessions Judge, the present applications have been filed. 2. It is clear from the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, dated 4-4-1964 that he sent the complaint to Sri R.C. Adhikari, a Magistrate, 1st. Class, for the purpose of making an enquiry to find out the truth of the complaint and as Raghunath Patra, one of the persons alleged against happened to be a gazetted officer, also to find out if the act alleged to have been done by him was done under colour of his office so as to require the sanction u/s 197 to take cognizance of the case. The enquiring Magistrate examined some witnesses and called upon Raghunath Patra to produce connected papers relating to the opening of a road on plot No. 65, as these papers were require. (in the judicial proceeding against him and others. In pursuance of this order the records of the Miscellaneous Case No. 15 of 1964 were produced before him. The said records show that on 7-3-1964 accused Bhagabat Panda applied to the Tahasildar for cutting the branches of the mango tree that overhang the public road as they caused inconvenience to the plying of his truck carrying black metals. There it was also alleged that the complainant was obstructing the public road. On 13-3-1964 the Tahasildar invited public objection and as no such objection was received he allowed the application for removal of the overhanging branches on the road. It further appears that the enquiring officer examined some other papers also in connection with the carrying of black metals by Bhagabat and the alleged obstruction by the complainant. Though the enquiring officer found that the witnesses examined before him fully corroborated the case of the complainant, in view of the records perused by him, he took the view that there is no prima facie case to summon the Tahasildar or the others u/s 379, Indian Penal 'Code. The Sub-divisional Magistrate before whom the report was submitted, dismissed the complaint on 29-7-1964 by his order already quoted. The Sub-divisional Magistrate before whom the report was submitted, dismissed the complaint on 29-7-1964 by his order already quoted. The learned Sessions Judge took the view that the learned Magistrate had gone beyond his jurisdiction at the stage of enquiry to call upon the accused to produce certain documents and in acting upon the same in respect of that evidence and that the Magistrate had not questioned the prosecution witnesses for obtaining their explanation and when the enquiring Magistrate found some corroboration of the complaint-story ill the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there was no justification to dismiss the complaint. For this, be relied upon a case in Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose and Another. The reasons given by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate has dismissed the complaint without giving any reasons. Section 20, Code of Criminal Procedure runs thus: The Magistrate before whom a complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred may dismiss the complaint, if, after considering the statement on oath (if any) of the complainant and the witnesses, and the result of the investigation or inquiry u/s 202, there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding. In such cases, be shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. It is not necessary that the Court should give elaborate reasons but he has to record his reasons briefly in passing the order of dismissal. In the present case, no reasons have at all been given. All that appears is that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint after perusal of the enquiry report and in view of the circumstances explained therein. The report of the enquiring Magistrate is somewhat confusing. In the first part he says that the complainant's evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of witnesses and in the second part he said that on perusal of the records and the evidence, he was of the opinion that no prima facie case has been made out u/s 379. In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, their Lordships also observed that where the Magistrate has dismissed the complaint without giving reasons as required by Section 203, the error is of a kind which goes to the root of the matter. The complainant is entitled to know why his complaint has been dismissed, with a view to consider an approach to the revisional Court. The complainant is entitled to know why his complaint has been dismissed, with a view to consider an approach to the revisional Court. Being kept in ignorance of the reasons, clearly prejudices his right to move the revisional Court. 3. One of the objects for sending the complaint for enquiry is to find out the truth of the complaint and also if the act complained of was done under colour of office so that the sanction u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure may be necessary. 4. u/s 203, the Magistrate has to give his opinion on the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry if any, but the Magistrate is not bound to accept the result of such enquiry or investigation. The Magistrate must however, independently apply his judicial mind to the materials on which he has to give his judgment (See Vadilal Panchal v. Pallarava AIR 1960 S.C. 3.) 5. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate though sent the complaint for an enquiry to find out if the alleged act committed by Raghunath Patra was done by him in course of his official business, he did not touch that question at all in his order. It is unnecessary to deal with the question of sanction u/s 197, Code of Criminal Procedure as that aspect of the case has not been considered by the Sub-divisional Magistrate while dismissing the complaint. In view of this position, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing a fresh enquiry. While making such enquiry, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, if he finds sufficient materials to summon any of the accused persons, he may do so or if he finds that there are not enough materials to proceed with the complaint it is open to him to dismiss the complaint giving good reasons for the same. There is no merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed