Judgment :- The first respondent herein is the Tahsildar and the second respondent is the Revenue Inspector. The third respondent is the village headman and the fourth respondent is the Karnam. The fifth respondent is the Thalayari and the sixth respondent was the procuring agent during the relevant period. The petitioner herein filed a complaint against them under Ss. 147, 447 and 395 I.P.C. alleging that on 22-3-1969 at about 6.30 p.m. they all came to his house, entered inside and forcibly removed some bags of paddy. He further complained that the first respondent caught hold of his Thulasimani and pulled it and pushed him down. Similarly the wife of the petitioner was pushed down by the second respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 threatened him using some words. Respondents 5 and 6, with the assistance of the men they had brought, removed the bags to the street. They refused to give any written order or receipt. This complaint taken on file by the learned District Magistrate, Tiruchirapalli, in C.C. No. 31 of the 1969 under Ss. 147 and 352 I.P.C. He transferred the case to the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Jayakondan for disposal. The latter numbered it as C.C. No. 850 of 1969, and on the objection taken by the respondents, that under S. 15 of the Essential Commodities Act the prosecution was barred he discharged them under Sec. 253(1) Cri.P.C. The correctness of this order is now canvassed in this revision petition. 2. The order of discharge under Sec. 253(1) Crl.P.C. is not proper. Under Sec. 253(1) Crl.P.C. the Magistrate can discharge the accused, if, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Sec. 252, and making such examination (if any) of the accused as the magistrate thinks necessary, he finds that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction. The learned District Magistrate has taken on file the complaint presented by the petitioner, and process was issued. None has been examined. The Magistrate had before him only the averments in the complaint and also those made in the sworn statement. Therefore, under these circumstances, he should not have discharged the accused under Sec. 253(1) Crl.P.C. 3. The learned District Magistrate has taken on file the complaint presented by the petitioner, and process was issued. None has been examined. The Magistrate had before him only the averments in the complaint and also those made in the sworn statement. Therefore, under these circumstances, he should not have discharged the accused under Sec. 253(1) Crl.P.C. 3. Objection was taken by the respondents on the ground that they removed the bags in discharge of their official duties in good faith and that as such the present prosecution is barred by S. 15 of the Essential Commodities Act. Observing that respondents 2 to 6 acted only under the directions of the first respondent, the Tahsildar, in good faith the learned Magistrate has discharged them. Then, as regards the first respondent the Tahsildar, he has invoked Sec-197 Cri.P.C. and said that the he had gone there only for the purpose of procurement which is an official duty and that as such in the absence of any sanction from the State Government, the complaint was not sustainable. He has overlooked the other allegations and accusations levelled by the complaint against the respondents. The complainant has averred that his thulasimani was pulled and that he was pushed down. He has further complained that his wife also was pushed down in a similar manner. The District Magistrate has taken cognisance under Section 332 (352 ?) I.P.C. The question is as to whether these acts were done by the respondents and for these offences no sanction under Section 197(1) Cri P.C. is necessary. Vide Sakuntala Bai v. Venkatakrishna Reddi, 1952 AIR(Mad) 667 ; Chinnasami Reddi v. Kuppuswami 1955 MadWN 47 and Ittyavira Appan v. Md. Kunju 1953 AIR(TCo) 183 . There was no judicial evidence before him to arrive at a conclusion that these acts were not done by the respondents and that the complainant had come forward with these allegation falsely without any basis. This is a matter of evidence and if, after recording some evidence, the Magistrate finds that the allegations are baseless and groundless he can discharge the accused under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 253. Thus without recording any evidence, he should not have discharged the respondents under Sec. 253(1) of the Code. Even as regards good faith it is a question of fact which will have to be gathered after gathering information, to conclude in one way or the other. 4. (2) of Sec. 253. Thus without recording any evidence, he should not have discharged the respondents under Sec. 253(1) of the Code. Even as regards good faith it is a question of fact which will have to be gathered after gathering information, to conclude in one way or the other. 4. The order of discharge is set aside and the District Magistrate is directed to have a further enquiry made by any competent Magistrate other than the Magistrate who disposed of this matter. 5. The revision is allowed.