( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20-7-1974 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First CSass, Sirsi, dismissing, presumably acting under S. 203 Crl. PC (old), the complaint filed by the petitioner and which was registered as Complaint No. 67 (1973 against the respondents ( 2 ) THE petitioner who was said to be a member of 'jan Sangh' and who was said to be serving as a Compounder under one Patwardhan at sirsi, filed the said complaint on 27-11-73 inter" alia alleging that on 2-10-73 at about 11-30 a. m. respondent-2 who was then serving as ASI in Sirsi town Police Station forcibly took him to the police station and there on the instigation of respondent-1 who was then serving as PSI there, respondents 2 and 3 kicked him with shoes and beat him with sticks and caused serious injuries saying that he had addressed a public meeting on 28-9-1973 in bidkihal at Sirsi, and for taking action under Sections 325, 352, 447, 341, 342, 506, 109 and 34 IPC. It appears despite the following request made by the petitioner in that viz : the learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Superintendent of police, Karwar, for investigation, presumably acting under S. 156 (3) crj. PC, and the Superintendent of Police on 25-3-1974 submitted a report and in the concluding paragraph of that report this is what he said:"after considering the above whole evidence, I am of the opinion that the complaint made against PSI, M. K. Pat. il, and others is not substantiated and the facts mentioned therein were not true as he had received injuries during lathi-charge made by the police to disperse the unlawful assemblies of which he was a member". It appears, the Advocate appearing for the petitioner who was heard in regard to. that report, submitted that the statements of the witnesses cited in the complaint were not properly recorded and as such the petitioner should be given an opportunity to produce his witnesses in support of the allegations made in the complaint. It appears, the Advocate appearing for the petitioner who was heard in regard to. that report, submitted that the statements of the witnesses cited in the complaint were not properly recorded and as such the petitioner should be given an opportunity to produce his witnesses in support of the allegations made in the complaint. However, the learned Magistrate taking the view that the Superintendent of Police was justified in coming to the said conclusion on the basis of the statements of 30 witnesses including some Of those cited in ithe complaint examined during investigation, and relying upon the following observations of this Court in State of Mysore v. Burli : (1973) 2 Myslj. 214,"it is open to the Magistrate to follow any of the four alternatives laid down in S. 202. But this section does not authorise the Magistrate to make use of all these alternatives. Thus, S. 202 does not authorise the magistrate to call for a police report and after receipt of police report to examine witnesses on behalf of the complainant to disprove the police report. Examination of witnesses on behalf of complainant after calling for police report and relying on them, is not a curable irregularity but vitiates the proceedings". passed the impugned order further stating thus :"in view of this decision of the Division Bench of our own High Court, i cannot record the statements of the complainant's witnesses So, I have no other alternative but to dismiss the complaint"aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision petition. ( 3 ) THE order of the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained on both the grounds. When the petitioner had made serious allegations against the respondents who were all police officials and had requested the matter to be enquired by the Magistrate himself, the learned Magistrate should have considered whether it was just and expedient to do so. Here I may point put that a Bench of the Calcutta High Court did not approve of an enquiry into a complaint against a Sub-Inspector by a Superintendent of Police as would appear from the following observations in the judgment of that Court in Haladhar Bhumani v. Sub-Inspector of Police. 9 Calwn. Here I may point put that a Bench of the Calcutta High Court did not approve of an enquiry into a complaint against a Sub-Inspector by a Superintendent of Police as would appear from the following observations in the judgment of that Court in Haladhar Bhumani v. Sub-Inspector of Police. 9 Calwn. 199"further, when these charges were laid against a Sub-Inspector, it seems to us that the enquiry into the truth of these charges would have been better carried out if entrusted to a Deputy Magistrate than to the District Superintendent of Police who as head of the Police might not be in as impartial a position for discovering the truth as an officer not connected with the police". The learned Magistrate appears to have not applied his mind as to whether there was any merit in the said request made in the complaint or not, and has, in a casual manner, ordered investigation. It is admitted that the superintendent of Police did not examine all the witnesses cited in the complaint and no reason is forthcoming as to why he emitted to examine the remaining witnesses, and the learned Magistrate while accepting his report has not bestowed sufficient thought over this matter. He himself has noticed that a submission was made that the statements were not property recorded by the Superintendent of Police , but he appears to have treated that submission in a light-hearted and casual manner. Even in the report of the S. P. there are some indications that the petitioner was taken to the police station and was detained there and he had sustained serious. injuries, and a Court whose duty it is to administer justice has to be alert and watchful to see that it is not led away by false pleas and the administration of justice should be conducted in such a manner as to preserve the people's confidence in it. It will be rather sad if an impression is created that a man subjected to illtreatment by policemen can have no redress in a court of law. Investigation is no doubt directed for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint i. e. , for ascertaining whether there is material in support of the complaint so as to justify the issue of process and commencement of proceedings against the persons concerned. Investigation is no doubt directed for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint i. e. , for ascertaining whether there is material in support of the complaint so as to justify the issue of process and commencement of proceedings against the persons concerned. In the present case, the learned Magistrate was not justified in giving too. much weight to the report of the S. P. and readily accepting and acting on it, in the face of challenge taken and the circumstances stated above. ( 4 ) COMING to. the second ground, the learned Magistrate in applying the rule laid down in (1973)-2 Mys. L. J. 214, appears. to have proceeded on the basis that the petitioners while challenging the report of the Superintendent of Police was requesting him (Magistrate) to. enquire into the allegations afresh as provided by S. 202 Crl. PC. But, it seems to me, that is not correct. The Counsel for the petitioner appears to have requested the learned Magistrate to allow the petitioner to substantiate the allegations made in his complaint in accordance with law. In other words, his request appears to be not to, accept the report of the Superintendent of Police but to take cognizance of the offence under S. 200 Crl. PC. and then to proceed in accordance with law. It is well settled that a Magistrate is not bound to accept the result of the enquiry or investigation and he must apply his judi- cial mind to the material on which he has to form his judgment and in arriving at his judgment, he is noi fettered in any way except by judicial considerations. Here, the following passage from the judgment of this Court in Siddappa. Gurappa v. Stale of Mysore. AIR. 1960 Mys. 237-1960 Myslj. 490. . may be excerpted :"on receipt of any report from the police under S. 173 of the Crl. PC, it is for the Magistrate either to accept the same or not. S. 190 (1) crl. PC. provides as follows :"except as hereinafter provided any Presidency Magistrate, Dist. Gurappa v. Stale of Mysore. AIR. 1960 Mys. 237-1960 Myslj. 490. . may be excerpted :"on receipt of any report from the police under S. 173 of the Crl. PC, it is for the Magistrate either to accept the same or not. S. 190 (1) crl. PC. provides as follows :"except as hereinafter provided any Presidency Magistrate, Dist. Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate and any other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf, may take cognizance of any offence; (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a report in writing of such facts made by any police officer; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed. ""from this provision it follows that the Magistrate is not bound by the recommendation of the police. In what cases he should take cognizance is a matter for him and not for the police. Sub-clause (b) of Section 190 (1), criminal Procedure Code, does not lay down that he could take cognizance only if recommended by the police. All that it requires is that there should be a report in writing from a police officer setting out the facts which constitute the offence. A Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence on the lac's contained in the report of the police officer, although in the opinion of such officer there is no evidence to justify taking further action". In Shivaraj v. Revappa. Crlrp. 21/69, this Court while setting aside the order of dismissal passed under S. 203 Crl. PC. on the basis of a B Summary Report submitted after investigation under S. 156 (3) Crl. PC, said thus :"in my opinion, the learned Magistrate was clearly wrong in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. Although the police had filed a b Summary report after investigation into the complaint, nevertheless, the learned Magistrate should have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the allegations made in his complaint, by taking cognizance of the offence u|s. 200 Crl. PC. and then should have proceeded according to law. As no opportunity was given to the complainant to prove the allegations made in his complaint, the learned Magistrate was not right in acting under the provisions of S. 203 Crl. PC. PC. and then should have proceeded according to law. As no opportunity was given to the complainant to prove the allegations made in his complaint, the learned Magistrate was not right in acting under the provisions of S. 203 Crl. PC. especially when the order of the learned Magistrate does not show that there are sufficient grounds for not proceeding with the complaint of the complainant. In my opinion, the Magistrate has committed an error in dismissing the complaint without giving an opportunity to the complainant to prove his case. His order is therefore set aside. . . . . . "in the instant case also, the learned Magistrate for the reasons already stated ought to have taken cognizance of the offence under S. 200 Crlpc and given an opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case as provided by law, and, the way in which he proceeded to deal with the matter cannot be countenanced. ( 5 ) IN the result, this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the learned Magistrate is directed to give an opportunity to the petitioner-complainant to prove the allegations made in his complaint, by taking cognizance of the offence under S. 200 Crlpc, of course if the petitioner is willing to do so, and then to proceed in accordance with law. --- *** ---