Judgment :- 1. This petition is to revise an order made under S.137 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. On receipt of a report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Trichur Cusba, that the petitioner obstructed a public pathway in S. No. 492/1, 493 and 294/1 of Puzhakkal Village causing much inconvenience to the public who had been using the pathway, the Executive First Class Magistrate, Trichur, had, on 8th October, 1965, passed a conditional order under S.133 Crl. P. C. calling upon the petitioner to remove the obstruction or to show cause why the order should not be enforced against him. The petitioner filed a written statement denying existence of any such pathway. The First Class Magistrate by an order on October 22, 1965, set the case for his local inspection on October 23 and for orders on October 29, 1965. The impression he gathered at the local inspection was that the report of the Sub Inspector was not without basis. When the case was taken up on October 29 neither the petitioner nor his advocate turned up. After hearing counsel for the other side the Executive First Class Magistrate made the conditional order absolute under S.137 (3) Crl. P. C. It is this order that is sought to be revised here. 3. Counsel for petitioner contends that the Executive First Class Magistrate misunderstood the scope of an enquiry under S.137 Crl. P C. and that for lack of proof beyond doubt of existence of a pathway the Magistrate ought to have cancelled his conditional order. It is strenuously urged that it is for the complainant to adduce proof positive of the existence of a pathway and of obstruction thereof by the petitioner before the conditional order can be made absolute and that the absence of the petitioner would not be proof of such facts. S. 137 Crl. P. C. reads thus: "137. (1) If he (the person against whom a conditional order is made) appears and shows cause against the order, the Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter as in a summons-case. (1) If the Magistrate is satisfied that the order is not reasonable and proper, no further proceedings shall be taken in the case. . P. C. reads thus: "137. (1) If he (the person against whom a conditional order is made) appears and shows cause against the order, the Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter as in a summons-case. (1) If the Magistrate is satisfied that the order is not reasonable and proper, no further proceedings shall be taken in the case. . (3) If the Magistrate is not so satisfied, the order shall be made absolute." The wording of this Section indicates that once a conditional order has been made, the Magistrate has to be satisfied on evidence that his conditional order was not reasonable and proper before he can drop the proceedings. The satisfaction is not of reasonableness and propriety of the order passed but of its unreasonableness and impropriety. If evidence therefor is not forthcoming the Section requires the Magistrate to make the conditional order absolute. In other words, it is for the person against whom a conditional order has been made to convince the Magistrate, that the conditional order was "not reasonable and proper" in the facts and circumstances of the case, and not for the other party to lead evidence to satisfy the Magistrate that his conditional order was reasonable and proper. The direction in clause (1) of S.137 Crl. P. C. that the Magistrate shall take evidence in the matter as in a summons-case, in the light of the provisions in clauses (2) and (3), means only that the mode of taking evidence in an enquiry under the Section shall be as provided in Chapter XXV of the Code for a summons-case. It gives no clue as to the onus of proof in the matter. The contention has therefore to be and is overruled. 4. Counsel for the petitioner then prayed for an opportunity to adduce evidence urging that the petitioner misunderstood the First Class Magistrate's posting of the case to October 29,1965, "for orders" as a posting for pronouncement of order in disposal of the case and as such disentitling";him to adduce evidence on October 29. The posting is only "for orders" and there was no indication that the order contemplated therein was one under S.137. In the circumstances of this case, the posting might as well have been for an order under S.139A in view of the petitioner's denial of the public right of way. The posting is only "for orders" and there was no indication that the order contemplated therein was one under S.137. In the circumstances of this case, the posting might as well have been for an order under S.139A in view of the petitioner's denial of the public right of way. Whether the order contemplated was one under S.137 or S.139A, the petitioner ought to have appeared that day with his evidence. He should not have been indifferent on October 29,1965, when the case was taken up. However, as there appears to have been a misunderstanding of the posting of the case, an opportunity may be afforded to the petitioner to prove his case; but the conditional order may remain in force till the First Class Magistrate is satisfied otherwise. 5. In the circumstances, I set aside the final order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Trichur, on October 29,1965, keeping alive the conditional order made by him on October 8,1965, and remit the case for a fresh enquiry under the relevant Section of the Crl. P. C., affording an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in the matter. To the above extent this revision petition is allowed, and in other respects dismissed.