Short Note : 1. The revision was against the order of the Sessions Judge setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate whereby the proceeding initiated on the complaint of the non-applicant had been dropped. The Sessions Judge had remanded the case for further enquiry into the complaint according to law. 2. It is not possible to sustain the order of the Sessions Judge. It is true that in a committal proceeding the committing Magistrate cannot assess the evidence and decide the case on merits but certainly he has got every jurisdiction to find out that any offence at all has been made out. The Magistrate has found the story of the complainant to be unnatural and improbable and that no prima-facie case has been made out. It may be pertinent to note that 3 sons of the non-applicant and another are being prosecuted by the police for an offence under section 324 read with section 34 IPC for assaulting the applicant in the evening of 6.11.1975. Obviously the present complaint is by way of counter blast to that prosecution. The relation between tile parties were strained and there are reasons for lodging a false complaint. Section 202 (2) requires the trial Magistrate to record evidence of all the witnesses produced by the complainant when the offence complained of is triable exc1usively by the Sessions Court. What is expected under this subsection is that the Magistrate shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. In the present case, on the first hearing on 6.12.1975 itself the Magistrate directed the non-applicant to produce all his witnesses. The case was adjourned on 20.12.1975. On 27.1.1976 the non-applicant examined two witnesses and he was directed to produce all his remaining witnesses on the next date on 3.2.1976 he examined two more witnesses and thereafter the case was adjourned from time to time and ultimately the proceedings were dropped 21.7.1976. The Sessions Judge was, therefore, not right in holding that no opportunity was given to the complainant to produce all his witnesses. If the complainant failed to produce all the witnesses, it was none of the concern of the Magistrate to record the statements of the witnesses not produced. Therefore, there has been compliance of section 202 (2) of the Code. If the complainant failed to produce all the witnesses, it was none of the concern of the Magistrate to record the statements of the witnesses not produced. Therefore, there has been compliance of section 202 (2) of the Code. The Sessions Judge was also in error in holding that the Magistrate had directed the police to make an enquiry after taking cognizance of the offence, which he could not do and enquiry could have been ordered before taking cognizance. In the present case, the Magistrate did not direct police to make any enquiry. He only sent for the report lodged by the complainant of the incident. So there has been no contravention of section 202. D.L. Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252 referred to. Revision allowed.