Judgment :- 1. The accused in C.C. 60 of 1967 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Neyyattinkara are the Revision Petitioners. That was a case charged by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjiramkulam under S.143, 148,149 and 379 Indian Penal Code against the Revision Petitioners who are 11 in number. It was alleged that the complainant (witness No.1 in the charge) was in possession and enjoyment of the Karikarakuzhi Varampu Purayidom with an extent of 2 acres and 65 cents comprised in S. No. 382/13 B of Kulathoor Pakuthy. While he was thus in possession, at about 10 in the night on 3 21967 the accused forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing theft of coconuts from the Purayidom entered the property and stole away from there 834 coconuts valued at Rs. 300/-. The complainant got information about the theft, only the next day and immediately he lodged the F. I. statement before the police. The case was registered on the complaint and the stolen coconuts were also recovered by the police. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has discharged the accused under S.251 (A) (2) Cr. P. C. Against this order of discharge a revision was filed by the complainant before the Sessions Judge Trivandrum and the order has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge and the case has been remanded to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate for trial and disposal according to law. It is against this order of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused have come up is in revision before this court. 2. The trial court in discharging the accused seems to have considered certain documents produced by the accused which according to the learned Sessions, Judge, he was not competent to look into under S.251 (A) Cr. P. C. I think the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is correct and his order cancelling the order of discharge entered by the learned Magistrate has to be upheld. S.251 (A) (1) provides that when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate should satisfy himself that the documents referred to in S.173 Cr. S.251 (A) (1) provides that when the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, the Magistrate should satisfy himself that the documents referred to in S.173 Cr. P. C. have been furnished to the accused by the police, and sub-section (2) of S.251 (A) provides that if upon consideration of all the documents referred to in S.173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge him. The sub-section thus provides for discharge of the accused without taking any evidence. All that the court is called upon to do before passing such an order of discharge is, to consider the documents referred to in S.173 and also to question the accused if necessary and hear arguments on both sides. The Magistrate can discharge the accused, only if he considers the charge groundless and in doing so the question is whether he is competent to travel beyond the limits of S.173 and consider documents not coming within the ambit of that Section. I think on a construction of the Section, the only materials on which the Magistrate may depend either for purposes of discharging the accused or for framing a charge against him are the documents referred to in S.173. Of course, the Magistrate may consider also the matters emerging from the examination of the accused and the points placed before him both by the accused and the complainant in the course of their arguments. The proceeding preceding an order of discharge under sub-section (2) is not a trial but only in the nature of an enquiry. It would therefore be improper for the Magistrate to take evidence or consider documents otherwise than those covered by S.173 and weigh such evidence or documents for the purpose of finding or not finding a prima facie case against the accused. The stage is not reached for either party to produce evidence. The only question before the Magistrate at the stage of S.251 (A) is to see whether on the materials before him, a charge could be framed or whether the accused could be discharged as there are no grounds for framing a charge. The stage is not reached for either party to produce evidence. The only question before the Magistrate at the stage of S.251 (A) is to see whether on the materials before him, a charge could be framed or whether the accused could be discharged as there are no grounds for framing a charge. The following observations of the Mysore High Court appearing in Nanjoorkhan v. State of Mysore (AIR. 1962 Mysore 106) are pertinent in this connection. The learned judge observed: "The material which the statute expressly requires him to consider consists principally of the documents referred to in S.173 of the Code, considerable portions of which consist of records of investigation which at the trial are not admissible in evidence but can be made use of only for a limited purpose stated in S.162 of the Code. At that stage, there is only the report of the Police Officer stating the result of his investigation and supported by the written record of the investigation conducted by him on the basis of which he moves the Magistrate to take cognisance of the offence said to have been committed by the accused. That material does not at that stage have the status of evidence tendered on oath nor has its veracity been tested by cross-examination or contradicted by the evidence which the accused may lead in defence. The prosecution at that stage must be taken merely to represent to the Court that the persons whose statements have been recorded in the course of investigation may be expected to depose to the facts recorded in those statements at the trial of the case." In the present case, records seem to have been produced by both the complainant and the accused; copies of judgment etc., to prove possession of the property. Such records can be looked into by court only at the stage of evidence; not at the present stage when the court is expected to look into only the documents referred to in S.173. The court is also to consider the arguments put forward on either side in the light of the materials before it, and if upon such consideration the court comes to the view that the accusation is groundless the accused is to be discharged. If the court is to widen the scope of the enquiry and consider documents not covered by S.173 Cr. If the court is to widen the scope of the enquiry and consider documents not covered by S.173 Cr. P.C. the entire set up will change and about the nature and origin of such documents the parties will have to be questioned and that will be possible only at the trial. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has discharged the accused on certain conclusions formed by him from the documents placed before him by the accused. The complainant did not get the opportunity to have his say in respect of those documents. The learned Magistrate in the circumstances, must be held to have transgressed his limits and weighed the evidence made available on either side which he is not entitled to do under S.251 (A) (2) Cr. P.C. The order of discharge therefore, was improper and that has rightly been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge. The Revision Petition in the circumstances, is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Dismissed.