JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This Criminal Revision arises under the following circumstances : One Markandeswar Parida filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur alleging commission of an offence of dacoity by the accused-opposite parties. After examination of the complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate held an enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code and directed the complainant to produce his witnesses. At the enquiry, the witnesses for the complainant were examined, but the complainant himself was not examined. Thereafter the Magistrate issued processes to the accused under section 204, Criminal Procedure Code and in due course committed them to the Court of Session to stand their trial under section 395, Indian Penal Code. At the trial, the prosecution wanted to examine the complainant, but the accused persons raised objection on the ground that the complainant having not been examined during the enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code his examination during the sessions trial is not permissible. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge upheld the objection by his order dated 7-11-1979. It is against that order this criminal revision has been preferred. 2. The point for consideration is whether a complainant who has not been examined at the enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code can be examined at the sessions trial. 3. Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code requires a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code deals with postponement of the issue of process against the accused. According to the proviso to section 202(2), Criminal Procedure Code if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. The Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant. He is required to examine only the witnesses produced by the complainant. In this context, the expression "his witnesses" occurring in the proviso to section 202(2) is significant. The complainant himself cannot answer the description of "his witnesses" within the meaning of that expression. The Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant. He is required to examine only the witnesses produced by the complainant. In this context, the expression "his witnesses" occurring in the proviso to section 202(2) is significant. The complainant himself cannot answer the description of "his witnesses" within the meaning of that expression. If the Legislature had intended that the complainant who has been examined under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code should also be examined a second time during the enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, it would have expressly said so. The learned counsel for the opposite parties is not in a position to cite any authority in support of his contention that it is obligatory on the Magistrate in any enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code to examine the complainant even though he has been examined under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Section 208, Criminal Procedure Code provides for the grant of copies of certain documents to the accused in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report. According to clause (i) of that section, the Magistrate is required to furnish to the accused copies of the statements recorded under section 200 or section 202, Criminal Procedure Code of all persons examined by him. The provision only means that if there are witnesses examined under section 200 or 202, the copies of their statements should be furnished to the accused. It is argued on behalf of the opposite parties that a statement recorded under section 202 might provide important material for cross-examination and unless the complainant is examined at the enquiry, the accused would not be in a position to discredit him by pointing out discrepancies, if any, in the evidence given at the trial and at the enquiry. I am unable to accept this contention. The legislative intention behind the provisions of section 208 is to enable the accused to have full idea about the case brought against him and to prepare for his defence. Even though the complainant is not examined at the enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is entitled to have the copy of the complainant petition as provided under section 204(3), the copy of the statement of the complainant recorded under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code and the copies of the statements of the complainant's witnesses recorded under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. All these documents will enable the accused to get sufficient information about the case against him. 5. Section 231, Criminal Procedure Code provides that on the date fixed for examination of witnesses, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. There is no prohibition from examining a witness who has not been examined during the enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the effect of non-examination of the complainant during the enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code is that the prosecution is debarred for ever from examining him. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned order. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge is directed to give an opportunity to the prosecution to examine the complainant. Final Result : Allowed