Short Note : 1. Mahila Ajuddhi Bai filed a complaint under sections 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code against Buddhiram and others in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate., The Court took conizance of the complaint under the said sections and issued summons to Buddhiram and others. Mahila Ajuddhi Bai was examined by the lower Court on 7-9-73 and Buddhiram and others were denied the right of cross-examination on her on the ground that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow cross-examination at that stage. Against that order, the revision was filed, which was allowed and it was held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that Buddhiram and others should have been allowed to cross-examine Mahila Ajuddhi Bai and her witnesses. To appreciate the point involved in this Case; it will be better to refer to the proceedings in the Trial Court. On 13-1-73, a complaint was filed and the statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On that date, the order mentions that summons be issued against Buddhiram and Baijnath under sections 420 and 423 IPC. The case being registered as Criminal Revision. Then, the next date fixed is 6-2-73. On this date, the presence of both the parties is mentioned and Buddhiram and Baijnath were asked to give surety and rersonal bond to the extent of Rs. 500 each. It also mentions that the parties want to compromise and, therefore, time is granted. The next date is fixed as 15-2-73. Then the next important date is 7-9-73. In that order, it is mentioned that the complainant was examined and on that date, the learned Magistrate did not allow Buddhiram and Baijnath to cross-examine the complainant. Held: Section 252 Cr.P.C. lays down that on the appearance of the accused. the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. He can discharge the accused if no case is made out to warrant the conviction, under section 253 Cr.P.C. If he finds grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence he will frame a charge against the accused as provided under section 254 Cr.P.C. and shall also record his plea. He can discharge the accused if no case is made out to warrant the conviction, under section 253 Cr.P.C. If he finds grounds to presume that the accused has committed the offence he will frame a charge against the accused as provided under section 254 Cr.P.C. and shall also record his plea. Under section 256 Cr.P.C., if the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried, he shall be required to state at the commencement of the next hearing of the case, or if the Magistrate, for reasons to be recorded in writing, so thinks fit, forthwith recall the prosecution witnesses already examined for cross-examination and re-examination, if any. 2. Similarly, section 200 Cr.P.C. says that the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. Section 201 Cr.P.C. is not material to the present case. Then section 202 Cr.P.C. deals with postponment of issue of process. Section 203 Cr.P.C. says that, if the Magistrate, after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation under section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case, he shall briefly record his reason for so doing. These sections make it clear that up to this stage the presence of the accused person is not essential and this is a matter between the Court and the complainant. The complainant has to satisfy the Court that there is a prima facie case against the accused. Then next Chapter XVI, which opens with the heading Commencement of proceedings before Magistrate's and section 204 deals with issue of process. It mentions that if the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence thinks that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding and that the case appears to be one in which according to the fourth column of the Second Schedule, a summons should issue in the first instance, he shall issue the summons for attendance of the accused. Then if the Schedule mentions warrant, then the warrant will be issued. Then if the Schedule mentions warrant, then the warrant will be issued. But as soon as the Magistrate has made up his mind and issued process, then, it is not a matter between the complainant and the Court. 3. In this case, as I have already indicated that the Magistrate has issued process against Buddhiram and Baijnath for attending the Court and answering the charge under sections 420 and 423 IPC. Not only this thing, but they have also submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and executed a personal bond and offered security of the amount of Rs. 500. Then the statement of the complainant is taken second time on 7-7-73. I see no reason why Buddhiram and Baijnath should not have been given opportunity to cross-examine the complainant. They were perfectly within their rights and their demand for cross-examination was legal. The order of the trial Court, in my opinion, was rightly set aside by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge. The above view is supported by Banwarila v. The State, AIR 1156 All. 385, Revision allowed.