ORDER This Revision Application is directed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panjim, dated 18-3-1972, charging the applicant for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, dismissing the Revision Application filed against the said order of the Judicial Magistrate. 2. A charge was framed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on a complaint filed by Shri D. Bandodkar that the respondent had made a public statement accusing him of doing smuggling and stating that one of the points where Shri Bandodkar was carrying on his smuggling activities was the Betul Port. 3. The Judicial Magistrate First Class examined the complainant and Shri M. Y. Gadkari, the editor of Gomantak newspaper. Shri Bandodkar was a formal witness because he was not present when the alleged statement was made by the petitioner. Shri Gadkari stated that he heard the petitioner stating that Shri Bandodkar was a smuggler and that he was carrying on smuggling through the Betul Port. He deposed that the respondent made the said statement at a press conference to which he was present and that he had taken down certain notes at that press conference. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the evidence of Shri Gadkari even if unrebutted would not be sufficient to frame a charge against the petitioner, because Gadkari was not entitled to any degree of credit. Shri Lobo, learned Advocate for the petitioner argues that the complainant had admitted that some of the reports appearing in Gomantak newspaper of which Shri Gadkari is the editor are not correct and that this fact renders the evidence of Shri Gadkari, unreliable and Shri Gadkari being the only witness examined by the prosecution it could safely be concluded that his evidence if unrebutted would not be sufficient to sustain a charge against the petitioner. 5. I am unable to agree with the reasoning adopted by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Gadkari is the editor of the newspaper 'Gomantak.' Dr. Lobo admits that besides Shri Gadkari many other members of the editorial staff of Gomantak take part in editing that newspaper. I cannot, therefore, hold Shri Gadkari responsible for the correctness of every statement published in the Gomantak. Besides, it is not stated that all the statements appearing in Gomantak are incorrect or false. Lobo admits that besides Shri Gadkari many other members of the editorial staff of Gomantak take part in editing that newspaper. I cannot, therefore, hold Shri Gadkari responsible for the correctness of every statement published in the Gomantak. Besides, it is not stated that all the statements appearing in Gomantak are incorrect or false. The most important fact is that what is relevant in the present case is not some incorrect statements appearing in the "Gomantak" but the statement made by Shri Gadkari before the Court, that he heard the petitioner calling Shri Bandodkar a smuggler, and specifying exactly the port through which Shri Bandodkar was carrying on smuggling. The fact that some members of the staff of the Gomantak newspapers published statements which are not correct or not true, cannot lead us to the inference that the word of Shri Gadkari is not worthy of any degree of credit, Shri Lobo relies on Ramgopal G. Ruia v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 97 = (1958 Cri.L.J. 244) where it was observed that the witnesses on whose evidence charge is framed must be such that is entitled to a reasonable degree of credit. In my opinion if follows from this decision, that the evidence of the witnesses on which the charge is framed need not be fully worthy of credit, but that it is enough if such evidence carries a reasonable degree of credit. Further, as rightly pointed out by Shri Dias, Shri Gadkari was cross-examined by the petitioner's learned Advocate and Dr. Lobo does not state that such cross-examination in any way helps the case of the petitioner or that it shook the credibility of the evidence of Shri Gadkari. Ordinarily when that does not happen the answers given in cross-examination strengthen the credibility of the witness. 6. Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that when the evidence spoken of in Section 253 has been taken, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under Chapter XXI, he should frame a charge. What is therefore necessary is that the Magistrate should form an "opinion" and that opinion must be that there are "reasonable grounds" for framing a charge. What is therefore necessary is that the Magistrate should form an "opinion" and that opinion must be that there are "reasonable grounds" for framing a charge. In this regard we cannot lose sight of the provisions of Section 252 of the Criminal Procedure Code which gives the Magistrate power to examine all such witnesses that he may deem necessary for the purpose of forming an opinion. This strengthens the case that the opinion of the Magistrate should not be lightly substituted by the opinion of the superior court. 7. At any rate, we are at present concerned with a prima facie and not with ascertaining the guilt of the accused. In the circumstances I find no substance in the Revision Application which for this reason fails. ORDER The Revision Application is dismissed. Application dismissed.