Order The petitioners before this Court are accused in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Manvi in Criminal Case No. 1343 of 1969 Respondent 1 is the complainant. A complaint was filed by Respondent 1 before the Police against the petitioners. After enquiring into the complaint the police thought that it was a civil dispute and directed the complainant if he thought fit, to file a complaint in the Court. The complainant thereafter filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant on oath and took cognizance of the case and directed the issue of summons against the accused persons for an offence under section 447 and section 370of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by this order of issuing summons, the petitioners filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Raichur The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition. This revision is directed against the said order of the learned Sessions Judge. Sri Raikote, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners for issuing process. The matter is only one of Civil dispute and the accused cannot be proceeded with for an offence of theft. He has relied on Behera Tanti v. State1 and Sitaram Bhola Ram v. State.2 in support of his contentions. Sri Raikote has also argued that in this case the mandatory provision of sub-clause (1-A) of section 204, Criminal Procedure Code, has been violated, The complainant has not given the list of witnesses in his complaint. Sub section (1-A) of section 204of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that no summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub- section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. It is argued that this is a mandatory provision and the failure to observe this would vitiate the entire proceedings. This amendment to section 204of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been introduced by the Legislature to safeguard the interests of the accused. It is argued that this is a mandatory provision and the failure to observe this would vitiate the entire proceedings. This amendment to section 204of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been introduced by the Legislature to safeguard the interests of the accused. In support of his contention, he has relied on ‘ Ram Narain's case3, Chaturbhuj v. Naharkhan4 and State of Orissa v. Apparao.5 It is not the function of this Court to decide, sitting in revision, even before any evidence is recorded by the trial Court, whether any prima facic case has been made out or whether the matter, is one of civil dispute. Section 204(1) makes it clear that if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall issue summons for the attendance, of the accused. If the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding it is his duty to issue summons.; As pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge this is a matter of discretion of the learned Magistrate., If he is of opinion that there is sufficient grounds to proceed he shall issue summons to the accused and it is not the function of this Court at this stage to go into the question whether the Court had sufficient grounds for proceeding to issue summons. If the evidence discloses that it is a civil dispute, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal., I, therefore decline to go into this question whether a prima facie case has been made out or whether the matter is of civil nature. Sri Raikote has strongly relied on Ram Narain v. Bishamber Nath3 in support of his contention that the provisions of sub-clause (1-A) of section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are mandatory in nature and non-observance of the same would vitiate the proceedings taken against the accused.; In the said decision, the Court took the view that the provisions of sub- section (1-B) of section 204 requiring that a summons or a warrant issued under sub- section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of the said complaint is directory in nature. But His Lordship held that the provisions of sub-clause (1-A) of the same section arc mandatory in nature., His Lordship stated that the provisions of clause (1-A) are mandatory in the sense that a process issued before the filing of the list of witnesses would be invalid., This clause is couched in a negative language, and it goes to the power of the Magistrate to issue summonses or warrants as the case may be., His Lordship held that the provisions which enjoin the Courts to satisfy themselves about the prima facie nature of a criminal charge, before issuing a process must be intended, in the absence of a clear suggestion to the contrary to be mandatory.] In State of Orissa v. M.V. Apparao5 the Court held that a list of prosecution witnesses has not been supplied along with the summons in the said case and that this was due to laches on the part of the prosecution. The Court did not say that it was a mandatory provision nor did it say that it would invalidate the proceedings. In Chaturbhuj v. Naharkhan,1 His Lordship held: “Having regard to the wordings of section 204, clauses (1-A) and (1-B), it is clear that the filing of the list of prosecution witnesses is essential unless the complainant is the only witness in the case and that along with the summons or warrant issued under sub- section (1) copy of the complaint ought to be sent to the accused. It is therefore not competent for a Magistrate to issue process without complying with these mandatory provisions.” In the said case the Court did not hold that the trial was vitiated but it directed the Magistrate to comply with the said provisions and proceed with the trial. With great respect to the learned Judges, I must say that it is not possible for me to agree with the view that if the list of witnesses had not been supplied along with the summons, that defect vitiates the entire proceedings. If the intention of the Legislature was that non-supplying of the list of witnesses would invalidate the taking of cognisance of the case, then the Legislature would have, stated specifically that no Court shall take cognisance of a complaint when the list of witnesses has not been furnished in the complaint. If the intention of the Legislature was that non-supplying of the list of witnesses would invalidate the taking of cognisance of the case, then the Legislature would have, stated specifically that no Court shall take cognisance of a complaint when the list of witnesses has not been furnished in the complaint. It seems to me that giving a copy of the list of witnesses along with the summons to the accused is only to give him an opportunity to know who are the witnesses that are likely to be examined. Even if the list of witnesses has not been given along with the summons, it is open to the Court to furnish the list to the accused later and give him sufficient time to cross-examine his witnesses. If this is done, the accused would not be prejudiced. The object of the amendment introduced by sub section (1-A) of section 204of the Code of Criminal Procedure seems to be as pointed out in Bata Behera v. Devendranath2by His Lordship Narasimham, J., is to give adequate notice to the accused and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. In paragraph 9 of the Order, His Lordship has observed as follows: “(9) The primary object of sub- section (1-A) of section 204, Criminal Procedure Code appears to be to give the accused adequate notice about the persons who would depose against him so that he may be ready to cross-examine them and unnecessary adjournments may be avoided. If new names are disclosed at a later stage of the trial the accused may be entitled to an adjournment for the purpose of enabling him to adequately cross-examine the persons.. If new names are disclosed at a later stage of the trial the accused may be entitled to an adjournment for the purpose of enabling him to adequately cross-examine the persons.. So long as an adequate opportunity is thus given to the accused to cross-examine the witnesses and he himself at no stage of trial asks for further adjournments for such purpose, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused on account of the failure of the complainant to disclose exhaustively the names of all the eyewitnesses at the earliest opportunity.” His Lordship also pointed out that it was always open to the complainant, later on, to add to the witnesses originally given and also to give up some of the witnesses in the original list., It is further stated that the omission of the names of any important witnesses in the first list might adversely affect their credibility in the absence of any satisfactory explanation., It was for the Court to take into consideration these factors while assessing the weight to be given to the evidence of those witnesses.; This is a case instituted on complaint and being a warrant case, the procedure laid down in Chapter XXI wilt have to be followed.. It may be mentioned. in a case like this the accused gets 3 chances to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. First, under section 252(1), the accused gets a chance to cross-examine all the witnesses, examined by the complainant. What is important to note is that after such examination of witnesses, under sub- section (2) of section 252, it is the duty of the Magistrate to ascertain from the complainant or otherwise the names of any person likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and able to give evidence for the prosecution, and he shall summon and examine such of the witnesses as he thinks necessary., From sub- section (2) it is clear that the complainant can examine later, witnesses not cited in the complaint. This clearly shows that undue importance has not been given to disclosing the names of the witnesses by the complainant at the earliest point of time in the complaint. It is open to the complainant under sub- section (2) of section 252 to examine any witness not cited in the complaint, without giving any notice to the accused. This clearly shows that undue importance has not been given to disclosing the names of the witnesses by the complainant at the earliest point of time in the complaint. It is open to the complainant under sub- section (2) of section 252 to examine any witness not cited in the complaint, without giving any notice to the accused. Under section 256 , the accused is given the right after the charge is framed against him, to recall all or any of the prosecution witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination.; Again thereafter under the same section 256, the complainant can examine the remaining witnesses for the prosecution. Then under section 257 , it is open to the accused, after he has entered upon his defence, to apply to the Magistrate to recall any of the prosecution witnesses for cross-examining them for the third time., I may point out that provisions of sub- section (2) of section 252 , section 256 and section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been brought to the notice of Their Lordships when they decided the cases mentioned above., I have no doubt that if the provisions of these sections had been brought to the notice of Their Lordships, they would¡ not have held that noncompliance with the provisions of section 204(1-A), would invalidate the proceedings taken earlier. The complainant is given the chance twice of examining witnesses not cited in the complaint without notice to accused under section 252(2) and section 256 … This would clearly show that Legislature did not attach much importance to the complainant mentioning in the complaint the names of his witnesses. This is possibly because the accused is given, as pointed out earlier, the chance of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses a number of times., I am therefore of opinion that the mere fact that along with summons a list of prosecution witnesses has not been given, would not invalidate the proceedings. This is possibly because the accused is given, as pointed out earlier, the chance of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses a number of times., I am therefore of opinion that the mere fact that along with summons a list of prosecution witnesses has not been given, would not invalidate the proceedings. Section 537, says that any order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall not be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, order or judgment, unless such omission or irregularity has in fact occasioned a failure of justice., Here at best, it is only an omission or irregularity in issuing the summons against the accused by not enclosing with the summons a list of witnesses.. Failure to give a list of witnesses along with the summons, in my opinion, is at best an irregularity which is curable by section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the list of prosecution witnesses has not been furnished by the Court along with the summons to the accused, the learned Magistrate is directed to furnish a list of prosecution witnesses to the petitioners (accused) in the case. After furnishing such a list of prosecution witnesses and also after giving adequate time for the accused to get ready with the case, the learned Magistrate will proceed with the trial. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. S.V.S. ----- Petition dismissed.