JUDGMENT 1. - This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has arisen in the following circumstances: 2. On the night between November 19/20, 1976 a dacoity with murder was committed at the tube well of complainant Sumera. The culprits caused hurt to both Sumera and his brother Kundan in the course of that transaction. Kundan succumbed to his injuries. The dacoits then went to the house of Bhagwan Singh and committed theft there. The FIR in the case was registered on November 22,1976. 3. On investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against Mohan Singh, Shanker and Shyama. Shyama was forwarded for proceedings preparatory to his commitment for trial. Mohan Singh and Shanker were shown as absconding. During the course of trial of Shyama by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur, Sumera the complainant made an application under Section 319 Cr. PC for proceedings against Kashi Ram and Bhagwan Singh, the present petitioners The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed that application with the remarks that he had already recorded the statements of a number of witnesses in the trial and that if he were to issue process against the present petitioners he would have to start the recording of evidence de novo. He farther observed that it was always open to Sumera to take proceedings against Kashiram and Bhagwan Singh by instituting a formal complaint against them. 4. Sumera filed a complaint in the court of the Judicial Magistrate concerned on January 22, 1980 wherein he prayed for prosecution of Kashiram and Bhagwan Singh under Section 396 IPC. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant on July 4 1980. The complainant thereafter examined Bihari and Bhagwan Singh as witnesses in support of the complaint. He closed his evidence without examining all the witnesses whose names were given in the list of witnesses accompanying the complaint. 5. By his order dated May 29, 1981, the learned Magistrate issued process against Kashi Ram and Bhagwan Singh for proceedings against them under Section 460 and 380 IPC. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the accused petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Session. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated December 15, 1982, dismissed the revision petition. Hence this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 7. Mr. 6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the accused petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Session. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated December 15, 1982, dismissed the revision petition. Hence this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 7. Mr. Shrimal, learned counsel for the accused petitioners has argued that the learned Magistrate committed an illegality issuing process against the accused petitioners under Section 460 and 380 IPC without recording the statements of all the witnesses of the complaint. Mr. Shrimal referred in this connection to the proviso to subsection (2) of section 202 Cr. PC which reads as under : "Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the court of Session, he shall call upon the complaint to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath." Mr. Shrimal construed this proviso to mean that once the complaint furnished a list of witnesses along with the complaint, no process can be issued by the Court against the accused unless and until the Magistrate has recorded the statements of all the witnesses mentioned in the list. I am afraid, it is not possible for me to accept this extrame view in the matter of construction, as suggested by Mr. Shrimal. If one reads the proviso carefully, it would at once be clear that the only duty imposed upon the Magistrate in a case exclusively triable by a court of Session is that he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and if they are so produced he shall examine them on oath. I have perused the record of the entire proceeding held in this case by the learned Magistrate and find that he substantially complied with the requirements of the aforementioned proviso inasmuch as, after he had recorded the statement of the complaint, he did call upon the complaint to produce his remaining witnesses. The Magistrate had thus discharged his duty under law. It was then for the complainant to call his witness and examine them on oath. What the complainant in the instant case did was to examine only one of the witnesses of the list and another whose name does not figure in the list. The complainant thereafter closed his case. The Magistrate had thus discharged his duty under law. It was then for the complainant to call his witness and examine them on oath. What the complainant in the instant case did was to examine only one of the witnesses of the list and another whose name does not figure in the list. The complainant thereafter closed his case. Under the circumstances, the learned Magistrate was left with no option but to decide as to whether process should be issued or not. On the basis of the evidence produced by the Complainant, he decided to issue process against the accused petitioners for proceedings under Sections 466 and 380 IPC. There is no illegality involved in the procedure as adopted by learned Magistrate. 8. As regards the merits of the order issuing process against the accused petitioners, I have gone through the statements of Sumera, Behari and Bhagwan Singh and find that they have given evidence supporting the accusation against the petitioners as contained in the complaint Mr. Shrimal says that none of three witnesses is reliable. This contention of Mr. Shrimal may or may not be correct, but it is for the court below to appreciate the evidence and then come to its own conclusion in the matter. I am deliberately refraining from expressing any opinion on the question of reliability otherwise of these witnesses. 9. In conclusion, this application under Section 482 Cr.PC is dismissed. 10. It may further be mentioned that the accused petitioners had furnished bail bonds in compliance with the orders of this court dated January 1983 for appearance in the court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dholpur as and when required by the said court. Mr. Shrimal says that the accused petitioners remain bound by these bail bonds and that they will enter appearance before the learned Magistrate on any date which may be fixed by this court for the purpose. It would accordingly direct, the accused petitioners through their counsel to enter appearance before the learned Magistrate on September 19, 1983. The bail bonds submitted by the accused petitioners will remain operative through. out the further proceedings in the court below till the same are cancelled or forefeited according to law. The record of the case will be returned to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dholpur immediately.Application Dismissed. *******