( 1 ) THIS revision is directred against the order of the Additional Sessions judge Belguam, reversing on revision tje order of discharge made by the judicial Magistratrate. First Class of that district in a case under S. 420 of the ipc and directing that a charge be framed under that count against the accused. The prosecution case was that the accused No. 1 (A. 1), the accused no 2 (A. . 2) and the accused No. 3 (A. 3)along with the accused No. 4 (A 4) entered into a joint business of purchasing and selling sarees, although the said business was to exist in the account books only in the name of of A. 4. Since the complainant was known to A. 1 to A. 3 he believed their representation and supplied sarees worth more than Rs. 4000 to A. 1 to A. 4. The katha was opened in the name of A 4. It was further stated that on 13-2-1974, when the complainant approached A. 1 to A 4 to make some payment Rs. 500 was paid in cash and two post dated cheques were got issued by A. 1 to A. 3 which were subsequently dishonoured. The said cheques were signed by A. 4. because the business was in his name. Thereafter on 10-3-1974, the complainant again approached the accused who assured him that the balance of the amount would be paid. Finally, on 16-4-1974, the complainant again approached A1 to A3. but the latter replied that they were not responsible and that the complainmant was at liberty to proceed against them. On theese allegations made in the private complaint submitted to the Magistrate the accused was said to have committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. ( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate issued process sgainst Al to A3. The case against A. 4 is stated to be split up and as such he may be proceeded against in another proceeding. After summoning the accused, since it was a complainant's case, under S. 244 of the Crl PC the evidence on behalf of the prosecution was recorded. As many as eight witnesses were produced. The learned Magistrate after considering the statements as well as the case made out in the complaint, was of the opinion that no case against the accused was made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant their conviction. As many as eight witnesses were produced. The learned Magistrate after considering the statements as well as the case made out in the complaint, was of the opinion that no case against the accused was made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant their conviction. Accordingly, he discharged A1 to A3 under Sec. 245 of the Code. Against that order of discharge the complainant filed a revision under sections 397 and 398 of Criminal Procedure Code before the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, however, considered that the order of discharge was improper and he passed the impugned order directing the Magistrate to frame a charge under Section 420 of the IPC. Being agggrieved by that order of the learned Sessions Judge, A1 to A3 have come up to this Court in revision. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners argued in the foremost that in view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Pakalapali Narayana gajapathi Raju v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu, AIR 1975 SC. 1854 , the power of a Sessions judge to interfere with the order of discharge was very much restricted. ( 4 ) IN revision filed by a private complainant against the order of acquittal the Supreme Court observed that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court could only be exercised in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice required interference for the correction of manifest illegally or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel, therefore argued that unless a case of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage age of justice was made out, the learned Sessions Judge could not interfere with the order of discharge. It was contended on behalf of the complainrnt that the observation made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case referred to the revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High court in a case of acquittal. That state of law may not be relevant to a case of discharge mads by the Magistrate for which the revisional powers are excercised by the Sessions Judge under S. 398 of the Code. There is obvious force in the argument of the learned counsel. It was submitted that in a police case if it results in acquittal an appeal by State is entertainable. There is obvious force in the argument of the learned counsel. It was submitted that in a police case if it results in acquittal an appeal by State is entertainable. ( 5 ) THAT being so the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court where no such appeal is filed is obviously much restricted, and whatever observation the learned Judges made in the aforementioned case should not strictly be applied, to the present case, where the learned Sessions Judge was exercising his revisional powers under S 398 of the Code. The question however before the Court is, as to whether the learned Sessions Judge even under Section 398 of the Code could exercise his revisional powers merely upon asking by the complainant. We have to refer to section 397 and it is clear that powers under Section 398 could be exercised by the Sessions Judge in order to assess the legality, correctness or propriety of the order made by the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge was no doubt exercising his revisional powers and he was circumscribed to exercise that power inasmuch as he could only interfere provided there was a manifest error in the order of discharge made by the Magistrate. treate. If the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution taker at its face value, would have proved the facts alleged or in other words if the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, remaining unrebutted, would have warranted the conviction of the accused, the order of discharge made by the Magistrate was incorrect and the decision of the learned Magistrate would be interfered with, on the ground of its correctness, legality or propriety. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was required to go into the question with reference to S. 245 and after considering the evidence referred to in S. 244 of the Code he could give his opinion that a case against the accused was made out which if unrebntted would warrant his vonviction and as such he could set aside the order of discharge The learned Sessions Judge while exercising his power in revision under S. 398 of the Code could enter into that enquiry. In his opinion, such a conclusion could not be drawn by the learned Magistrate and he could interfere with the order of discharge. In his opinion, such a conclusion could not be drawn by the learned Magistrate and he could interfere with the order of discharge. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners then contended that on the facts mentioned in the complaint as well as in the statements of witnsses, a prima facie case was not made out against the accused. It is, however, contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not discussed the evidence and as such he could not arrive at the conclusion that the accused never deserved lo be discharged. But, in the judgment ox the learned Sessions judge, he did refer to all the relevant evidence adduced on behalf or the prosecution. It is significant that the learned Magistrate while discussing evidence at one stage observed in the following terms : "so under these circumstances, as contended by the accused, there arises a doubt about the overt acts of A-2 and A-3 in the course or the incident alleged. ""the above observation by the learned Magistrate deals with the case against A-2 and A-3 and as rightly urged by the learned Counsel for the complainant that even if a doubt was raised in the mind of the learned Magistrate as to the commission of offence by a-Z and A-3, these accused could not be discharged. The leaned magistrate was only required to consider the evidence prima facie with the pointed view before him, as to whether the evidence, if remained unrebutted, would result in conviction. He was not required to consider the entire pros and cons of the evidence which was yet to be adduced, inasmuch as the witnesses were to be pxoduced lor further cross-examination and perhaps defence witnesses might also be examined. The learned Magistrate, it appears, balanced the entire evidence as if he had reached at a final stage in the trial. He was not recording an order of acquittal as if the trial was over. He was merely required to consider the case under S. 245 to find if the accused could be discharged or not and if a charge against them was to be framed under S. 246 of the Code. The learned Magistrate decidedly fell into an error while considering the case of the accused for acquittal which he could only do after the trial was over. The learned Magistrate decidedly fell into an error while considering the case of the accused for acquittal which he could only do after the trial was over. " ( 7 ) IN the complaint, a case under S. 420 of the Code was prima facie made out. The allegations made in paras 2 and 3 of the complaint staled about the conjoint action of A-l and A-3 and also referred Co four material dates which are 9-1-1974, 13-2-1974, 10-3-1974 and 16-4-1974. Certain overt acts were committed by all the accused with reference to these dates. As slated by PW. 1 the complainant, A-1 to A-4 very much approached him on 9-1-1974 and made certain representations which were proved to be false. According to him they also deprived him of a valuable property. For the incidence of 9-1-1974 the two witnesses PW. 2 and PW. 6 stated before the Court. For the incident of 13-2-1974, PW. 1 similarly stated. The two cheques were signed by A-4 but the same were delivered by the remaining accused to the complainant, in respect of the date 10-3-74, both pw. 1 and PW. 6 stated in favour of the prosecution The part assigned to A-1 to A-3 was deposed to by the witnesses. It was stated that the. wo cheques were, given by A1 to A3 although these cheques were dishonoured. Assurances were made by A-1 to A-3 on 10-3-1974 which were not fulfilled. On 16-4-1974 again A1 to A3 refused to help the complainant. They asked him to take whatever steps he preferred in the matter. All this evidence, according te the learned Sessions Judge decidedly indicated the necessary ingredients for the offence under S. 420 of the Code. At any rate, it can not be Stated, that this evidence if remains unrebutted would not warrant conviction. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was clearly in error in recording the order of discharge. ( 8 ) AS the learned Counsel for the complainant submitted S. 398 of the code conferred jurisdiction upon the learned Sessions Judge to interfere with the order of discharge and to ask for further enquiry into the complaint. In the instant case the learned Sessions Judge instead directed that a charge under S. 420 of the Code be framed against A-1 to A-3. To that extent the order of the learned Sessions Judge need be set aside. In the instant case the learned Sessions Judge instead directed that a charge under S. 420 of the Code be framed against A-1 to A-3. To that extent the order of the learned Sessions Judge need be set aside. The revision is therefore, dismissed with the modification that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned magistrate to reconsider it on merit under S. 245 Crlpc and after making such further enquiry either he may discharge the accused or he may frame a charge against them for any offence that may be prima facie made out upon evidence on the record. --- *** --- .