Order: Revision sought for here is of an order of discharge passed on 25th, September 1974, in a warrant case. The case was instituted on a private complaint filed by the revision petitioner. The complaint was that the accused persons, four in number, trespassed into the house of the complainant and committed theft of several valuable articles and cash amounting to Rs. 384. Some of the witnesses, including one Gadadharan Namboodiri, for whom the complainant had taken steps, were not examined. In a petition filed by him on 4th September, 1974 the revision petitioner had brought that matter to the notice of the Magistrate and requested that they also may be examined. This petition appears to have escaped the notice of the Magistrate. No reason was assigned by him for not examining some of the witnesses for whom the revision petitioner had taken steps. Mr. Siby Mathew appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner submits that the Magistrate was not right in discharging the accused under section 253 (1) of the old Criminal Procedure Code-Section 244 (1) of the now Code-without examining the remaining witnesses for whom steps had been taken and without finding that even if they were examined the charge could not be sustained. He is right in that submission. The decision of Velu Pillai, J., in Parameswara Menon v. Bhaskaran1, with which I respectfully agree, supports him. This revision petition is accordingly allowed, the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate is quashed and the case is sent back to him for fresh disposal after examining all the witnesses for whom the revision petition had taken steps.