JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The complainants in I.C.C. No. 19/80 in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur are the petitioners in this revision petition challenging the order dated 10-2-1981 of the said court refusing to issue process to the opposite parties. 2. The petitioners filed a complaint against opposite parties alleging inter alia that on 4-4-1980, P. Bhoi, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Jharsuguda Police Station accompanied by some Constables came to their residence and forcibly took the petitioners to the Police Station without disclosing any reason and at the Police Station, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and K. Pradhan, the Officer-in-charge, Jharsuguda Police Station assaulted them. On the basis of the complaint, an enquiry under section 202, Cr P. C. was held by the learned Magistrate. In course of the said enquiry, recorded the statements of the petitioners as the statements of three persons examined at the instance of the petitioners. He also examined one D.N. Biswal, Circle Inspector of Police. Jharsuguda Police Station as p. w. 4 whose examination he felt necessary to arrive at the truth. 3. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203, Cr. P. C. by a cryptic order. The order of the learned Magistrate is challenged mainly on the grounds that he has failed to pass a reasoned order while dismissing the complaint and that it was not open to the learned Magistrate to record the statement of the Circle Inspector since he was not a person examined at the instance of the complainant. The position of law is well settled that the enquiry under section 202, Cr. P.C. is not a substituted for trial which would follow when the Magistrate issues process under section Cr. P.C. For determining the question whether any process' be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whet there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. The object oft enquiry under section 202, Cr. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. The object oft enquiry under section 202, Cr. P.C. is to ascertain the truth falsehood of the complaint, but the Magistrate making the enquiry has to do this only with reference to the intrinsic quality of the statements made before him at the enquiry which would naturally mean the complaint itself, the statement on oath made by the complainant and the statements made before him by persons examined at the instance of the complainant Where there is prima facie evidence, even though an accused may have a defence, the matter has to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of process cannot be refused. Where the Magistrate has dismissed the complaint without giving reasons as required by section 203, Cr. P.C. the error is of a kind which goes to the root of the matter. Giving of reasons is a pre-requisite for making an order of dismissal of a complaint under section 203, Cr. P. C. and absence of the reasons would make the order a nullity. The complainant is entitled to know why his complaint has been dismissed with a view to consider an approach to a revisional. Court. Being kept in ignorance of the reasons clearly prejudices his right to move the revisional Court and where he takes a matter to the revisional Court, renders his task before that Court is difficult (Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and another' AIR 1963 S.C. 1430 ). The Supreme Court in another decision, Nirmaljit Singh Moon v. the State of West Bengal & another s' AIR 1972 S.C. 2639 , interpreting the words "No sufficient ground for proceeding" came to hold the words 'sufficient ground' used in Sections 203 and 209 mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused, by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and do not mean sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. The test is whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction, and 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 issue of a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case. The Court in the case of Harekrushna Mohanty v. Adikando Behera 31 (1965) C.L.T. 1100, and in the case of Banchhanidhi Moharatha v. Srinibas Paikroy and Others 33 (1967) C.L.T. 38, has taken a similar view. 4. It is imperative that a Magistrate should record the reasons for dismissing the complaint under section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In other words the order dismissing the complaint should briefly state the reasons which would stand a judicial scrutiny with reference to the facts on record. The impugned order does not satisfy the tests laid down and it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has not applied its mind to to the evidence on record and the law on the subject. The Magistrate is also not entitled to consider any material excepting the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant on oath if available and the statements of the witnesses examined at the instance of the complainant. Hence, the examination of the Circle Inspector of the Police at the instance of the Court was clearly erroneous and impermissible. The observation of the learned Magistrate that the medical evidence is capable of the two views suggests that he was under the impression that he has to find sufficient grounds for conviction and not a prima facie case only. 5. In the aforesaid premises, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10-2-1981 dismissing the complaint under section 203, Cr P. C is not sustainable Accordingly the revision is flowed and the impugned order is set aside. 6. Having regard to the fact that the complainant had given due opportunity to examine himself and other witness. I do not think that there is any need for directing a further enquiry. 6. Having regard to the fact that the complainant had given due opportunity to examine himself and other witness. I do not think that there is any need for directing a further enquiry. The Magistrate should reconsider the evidence on record excepting that of the Circle Inspector and pass an order in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before him on 13-2-1984 to receive appropriate directions. Final Result : Allowed