JUDGMENT.- The revision is directed against the order passed by the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C. No. 132 of 1980. The petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate making certain allegations that the respondent committed misappropriation of the amounts. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the petitioner. In the sworn statement, the complainant stated that the accused was drawing the salaries of one Appallamma though she was removed from service long back, that several servants, who are not working in the institution, were shown by the respondent that they were in service and she was drawing their salaries and showing that she was paying salaries to them though in fact no such payments were made to them and she was, therefore, guilty of misappropriation. 2. The petitioner also examined another witness by name Mudigonda Gopaiah, whose sworn statement was also recorded. He stated that he was working as a peon in the respondent's college, and his sons names were shown as the employees. His sons are-Mallikharjunarao, Durgarao and Viswanath, and they were shown by the accused-respondent as employees though they were actually not employed, that the respondent used to take the signatures of his sons every month and used to send them away, that they were never paid any salary and that one Appallamma was shown in the service, though she was not in service and salaries were drawn in her name. 3. Though the sworn statement of the complainant and the sworn statement of the witness, Mudigonda Gopaiah, disclose prima facie material showing that the respondent committed offences punishable under sections 409 and 420 , Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate instead of taking the complaint on file for those offences, dismissed the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. While dismissing the petition under section 200. Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate passed the following order. “……The case against the accused is filed under sections 403 , 409 , 420 and 465 and 477-A, Indian Penal Code. Among these sections, sections 409 and 420, Indian Penal Code, are cognizable offences for which a police report is necessary before filing any private complaint. It is not stated in the complaint that the complainant gave a police report against the accused on 19th November, 1979 or on any subsequent date. Among these sections, sections 409 and 420, Indian Penal Code, are cognizable offences for which a police report is necessary before filing any private complaint. It is not stated in the complaint that the complainant gave a police report against the accused on 19th November, 1979 or on any subsequent date. The Court act as an investigating agency and in cases like cheating and misappropriation many documents should be seized by the police at the earliest possible opportunity on receipt of a report from the complaint so that they may be useful for investigation and enquiry by Court. The evidence of Mudigonda Gopaiah is not at all believable because he is only a menial person came forward to corroborate the sworn statement of the complainant. Under these circumstances, I feel it expedient in the interest of justice to dismiss this complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.” 4. It is this order that is assailed in this revision. 5. Sri Chalmeshwar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate has committed illegality in holding that sections 409 and 420, Indian Penal Code, are cognizable offences for which police report is necessary before filing any private complaint and it is not stated in the complaint that the complainant gave a report to the police against the accused on 19th November, 1979 or on any subsequent date. He also contends that it is not condition precedent that the complainant should approach the police first and give a report to the police in every cognizable offence and the failure to give a report to the police disentitles the party to file a private complaint before the Magistrate. He further contends that the learned Magistrate has also committed an illegality in holding that the evidence of Mudigonda Gopaiah is not at all believable because he is only a menial and he can very easily be tempted by any person and no responsible persons came to corroborate the sworn statement of the complainant. He contends that the learned Magistrate is not expected to weigh the evidence of Mudigonda Gopaiah at this stage and the reasons for placing no reliance upon the evidence of Mudigonda Gopaiah are not at all tenable under law. He, therefore, contends that the order of the lower Court should be set aside. 6. He contends that the learned Magistrate is not expected to weigh the evidence of Mudigonda Gopaiah at this stage and the reasons for placing no reliance upon the evidence of Mudigonda Gopaiah are not at all tenable under law. He, therefore, contends that the order of the lower Court should be set aside. 6. Sri Venkata Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the Magistrate has got power to consider whether the material brought on record is worthy of credit in order to find out a prima facie case. He also contends that for considering whether the material brought on record is worthy of credit or not, the Magistrate can weigh and scrutinise the evidence of the witnesses with reference to the trustworthiness of the witnesses and if the Magistrate feels that the evidence is unworthy of credit, he has power and jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor is also heard. He contends that for the purpose of taking cognizance of a complaint, the Magistrate has to consider whether there is a prima facie material in support of the allegations, and if the sworn statement as well as the statement of the witnesses examined by the complainant lends support to the allegations made in the complaint, the Magistrate should issue the process, and the Magistrate has no power to weigh and scrutinise the evidence to find out whether the evidence is trustworthy or untrustworthy. 8. Before I deal with the provisions of section 203 and its scope and effect, it is necessary for me to refer to the powers of the Magistrate under sections 190 , 200 , 202 and 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 9. Under section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence either on receiving a complaint or a police report or on information otherwise received. When a complaint is presented before the Magistrate, he can under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, take cognizance of the offence from the statement on oath of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses examined by him. When a complaint is presented before the Magistrate, he can under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, take cognizance of the offence from the statement on oath of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses examined by him. The object of such examination is to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the person accused of the offence, in the complaint and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vexatious or intended only to harass such a person. Such examination is provided, therefore, to find out whether there is sufficient ground or not for proceeding. Under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, a Magistrate on receipt of a complaint may postpone the issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to him or by a police officer for ascertaining its truth or falsehood. Under section 203 , the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint, if after taking into consideration the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the investigation, if any under section 202, there is in his judgment " no sufficient grounds for proceeding" and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. The expression ‘there is no sufficient ground for proceeding" assumes, much importance for applying the provisions of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. It envisages that if the Magistrate considers that the material before him is not sufficient for proceeding, section 203, empowers him to dismiss the complaint. It means if the material before the Magistrate is not sufficient to make out a prima facie case, he can dismiss the complaint. The material, which the Magistrate has to consider may consist of the statement of the complainant and also the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint. If the statement of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant are, contradictory to each other the Magistrate can say that the material is not sufficient for proceeding. In other words, the Magistrate can say that in his opinion the material before him is not sufficient to put the accused on trial and then the Magistrate can, therefore, say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. In other words, the Magistrate can say that in his opinion the material before him is not sufficient to put the accused on trial and then the Magistrate can, therefore, say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. The Magistrate should understand this expression in the sense that the material before him need not be sufficient enough to secure conviction. If the material is sufficient to put the accused on trial the Magistrate cannot apply the provisions of section 203 and cannot dismiss the complaint. This subtle distinction the Magistrate should bear in mind for applying the provisions of section 203. Thus it is clear that the Magistrate is empowered to dismiss the complaint under section 203, Criminal. Procedure Code, only if and when he is satisfied that the material with reference to trustworthiness or the accused on trial. For this purpose, he is not required to examine whether the material is worthy of credit. The scrutiny of the material with reference to trustworthiness or the credibility of the witness will arise only if the Magistrate is required to consider whether the material is sufficient to secure or warrant conviction. If the statement of the complainant and the statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant on the other hand make out the offences for which the complainant is filed, the Magistrate should put the accused on trial by issuing process as contemplated under section 204 , Criminal Procedure Code, but he has no jurisdiction to dismiss it under section 203 on the ground that the material is not trustworthy. 10. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court had to consider the scope and effect of the provisions of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, in several decisions. The earliest decision dealt by the Supreme Court on this aspect is in Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatrya1 Their Lordships laid down that section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, requires a Magistrate to consider the statement of the complainant, his witnesses and the result of the investigation or enquiry. But the judgment which the Magistrate has to form is whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This does not mean that the Magistrate is bound to accept the result of the inquiry or investigation or that he must accept the plea that is set up on behalf of the person complained against. But the judgment which the Magistrate has to form is whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. This does not mean that the Magistrate is bound to accept the result of the inquiry or investigation or that he must accept the plea that is set up on behalf of the person complained against. The Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the materials on which he has to form his judgment. In arriving at his judgment he is not fettered in any way except by judicial considerations. He is not bound to accept what the inquiring officer says, nor is he precluded from accepting a plea based on an exception, provided always there are satisfactory and reliable materials on which he can base his judgment as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding on the complaint or not. If the Magistrate has not misdirected himself as to the scope of an enquiry under section 202 and has applied his mind judicially to the materials before him, their Lordships thought that it would be erroneous in law to hold that a plea based on an exception can never be accepted by him in arriving at his judgment. What bearing such a plea has on the case of the complainant and his witnesses, to what extent they are falsified by the evidence of other witnesses-all these are questions which must be answered with reference to the facts of each case. No Universal rule can be laid in respect of such questions. 11. In that case the record of investigation made under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, perused by the Magistrate and ultimately the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the shot was fired by the accused in self defence was true and hence the statements of the four eye-witnesses brought by the complainant are false and they are not credible witnesses. He finally dismissed the complainant under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. 12. Against this order the respondent-complainant moved the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed the Presidency Magistrate to issue process against the appellant. The correctness of that order was challenged before the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the High Court observed as above. 13. 12. Against this order the respondent-complainant moved the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of dismissal and directed the Presidency Magistrate to issue process against the appellant. The correctness of that order was challenged before the Supreme Court. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the High Court observed as above. 13. The next decision on this aspects is in Pramatha Nath v. Saroj Ranjan1 Their Lordships elaborately considered once again the, scope and effect of the provisions of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. Their Lordships held as follow;: Where a complaint is filed and the Magistrate in an enquiry held under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code , takes the evidence offered by the complainant into consideration and comes to the conclusion that there was no ground to proceed, that the evidence is not worthy of credit and that he is not satisfied with the correctness of the complaint, he is entitled to refuse the issue of process and dismiss the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. In such circumstances, the order of dismissal made by the Magistrate cannot be said to be in any manner manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish, nor can it be said that the Magistrate ignored any principles which are necessary to apply under sections 202 and 203, Criminal Procedure Code, nor that there are no sufficient grounds for doing so. " 14. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that since the object of an enquiry under section 203 is to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are intrinsically true, the Magistrate acting under section 203 has to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In order to come to this conclusion, he is entitled to consider the evidence taken by him or recorded in an enquiry under section 202 or statements made in an investigation under that section, as the case may be. He is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. Where there is prima facie evidence, even though an accused may have a defence that the offence is committed by some other person or persons, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be refused. He is not entitled to rely upon any material besides this. Where there is prima facie evidence, even though an accused may have a defence that the offence is committed by some other person or persons, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be refused. Their Lordships also examined the scope and effect of the expression " there is no sufficient ground for proceeding" as employed in section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, and held that if the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and his own evidence were not self-contradictory and therefore it cannot be said that there was anything intrinsically false in the allegations made in the complaint. 15. According to their Lordships, the complaint cannot be dismissed and the Magistrate has to proceed with the matter unless the statement of the complainant is self-contradictory and the evidence of the witnesses examined by him is intrinsically false. 16. In Nirmaljit v. State of West Bengal,1 their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. Then the Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the decision in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose2 and observed wherein it was laid down that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction and that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence, the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and the issue of a process could not be refused. 17. In Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan3 their Lordships in Para. 9 observed that in the instant case, there was prima facie evidence against Suraj Bhan accused which required to be weighed and appreciated by the Court of Session. 17. In Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan3 their Lordships in Para. 9 observed that in the instant case, there was prima facie evidence against Suraj Bhan accused which required to be weighed and appreciated by the Court of Session. At the stage of sections 203 and 204 , Criminal Procedure Code, in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session, all that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under sections 200 and 202, Criminal Procedure Code, there is prima facie evidence in support of the charge levelled against the accused. All that he has to see is whether or not there is " sufficient ground for proceeding" against the accused. At this stage, the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial Court. The standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in scrutinisting the evidence is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges. The standard of proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing charges. A fortiori, at the stage of sections 202 /204, if there is prima facie evidence in support of the allegations in the complaint relating to a case exclusively triable by the, Court of Sessions that will be a sufficient ground for issuing process to the accused and committing them for trial to the Court of Session. 18. In the case on hand, the sworn statement of the complainant and the statement of the witness examined by the complainant lend support to the allegations made by the complainant. But yet the learned Magistrate refused to issue process under section 204 , Criminal Procedure Code, and dismissed the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that the evidence of the witnesses examined by the complainant should be rejected as he is a menial and he can be pocketed by the complainant. 19. Obviously, the Magistrate has gone beyond the scope of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as she (the Magistrate) scrutinised the evidence with reference, to its trustworthiness. As stated above, that is not contemplated by the provisions of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. 19. Obviously, the Magistrate has gone beyond the scope of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, inasmuch as she (the Magistrate) scrutinised the evidence with reference, to its trustworthiness. As stated above, that is not contemplated by the provisions of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. The creditworthiness of a witness has to be judged for giving conviction but not for finding out whether there is a prima facie material to proceed or to put the accused on trial. The Magistrate ought to have issued process under section 204 , Criminal Procedure Code, and ought not to have dismissed the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. 20. Sri S. Venkatareddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent, contends that their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in Pramatha Nath v. Saroj Rajan1 that if the evidence is not worthy of credit the, Magistrate is entitled to apply the provisions of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, and dismiss the complaint. He, therefore, contends that even for considering whether the material is not sufficient for the application of the provision of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, the creditworthiness of the material can be examined and the Magistrate is, therefore, justified in examining the creditworthiness of the witness examined by the complainant. 21. It is true that their Lordships observed in that case that the evidence is not worthy of credit and the Magistrate is not satisfied with the correctness of the complaint and is, therefore, entitled to refuse issue of process: 22. In that case the Magistrate had to examine the record of enquiry held under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, and in examining so, the learned Magistrate made the, observations stated above. The Supreme Court also held that the material available from an enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, should be examined for judging whether the statement of the witnesses are worthy of credit. 23. But this principle will not apply to a case where the Magistrate is required to examine the statement of the complainant and also the statement of the witnesses examined by the complainant in order to find out whether there is " sufficient ground" or ‘not sufficient ground ". The creditworthiness of the witnesses need not be considered at that stage. But this principle will not apply to a case where the Magistrate is required to examine the statement of the complainant and also the statement of the witnesses examined by the complainant in order to find out whether there is " sufficient ground" or ‘not sufficient ground ". The creditworthiness of the witnesses need not be considered at that stage. What all the Magistrate has to consider in order to find out prima facie material is whether the material is sufficient to put the accused on trial or not. If the material is sufficient, then he has to issue process under section 204 , Criminal Procedure Code, if not sufficient, he has to apply the provisions of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, and dismiss the complaint. This is made clear by their Lordships of the Supreme, Court in their rulings in Nirmaljit v. State of West Bengal1 and also in Kewal Krishan v.Suraj Bhan2 24. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merits in the contention;: of the learned Counsel for the respondent. I, therefore, hold that the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality in weighing the evidence with reference to the creditworthiness of the witnesses, which is not contemplated by the provisions of section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. 25. Another illegality committed by the learned Magistrate is that the Magistrate felt that since the offences under sections 409 and 420 , Indian Penal Code, are of serious nature, the complainant ought to have given a report to the police before he filed the complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. This is not contemplated by section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand, section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, provides that any person can file a complaint before a Magistrate in respect of cognizable offence or non-cognizable offence. The Magistrate, after the complaint under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code, is filed before him, can consider whether any investigation by the police is necessary in a case of cognizable offence. If it is necessary, he can send it to the police for investigation and report. If he thinks it not necessary, he can issue process and proceed with the trial of the case. If it is necessary, he can send it to the police for investigation and report. If he thinks it not necessary, he can issue process and proceed with the trial of the case. That being the legal position, the learned Magistrate committed an illegality in refusing the complaint on the ground that the offences alleged by him against the respondent are cognizable offences and he should, therefore, give a report to the police before he approached Court under section 200, Criminal Procedure Code. This the grounds on, which the complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate are vitiated with illegality. 26. In the result, the order of the learned Magistrate to set aside and the case remanded to the lower Court for disposal according to law. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and the criminal case is allowed. R.S.R. ----- Revision allowed.