JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - The accused persons in a complaint case are the petitioners and they have challenged the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge who has set .aside the order of the learned Magistrate and has directed the learned Magistrate to decide on the materials on record as to whether a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners or not. 2. From the revision petition as well as from the records of the case it appears that a complaint was filed by opp, party No. I alleging that the petitioners came armed in a body 19-11-1976 and assaulted the son of the complainant. When the complainant rushed to rescue his son, he was also assaulted and was hospitalised, Comptainant's mother gave a written report to the police on the basis of which a First Information Report was drawn up, but as the investigation was not fair, the complainant was obliged to file the complaint case. 3. The learned Magistrate received the complaint on 14-12-1976 and the initial statement was recorded on 15-12-1976. Thereafter the learned Magistrate called for a report from the Officer-in-charge, Lalbag Police Station The matter was adjourned on several occasions for getting the report from the police station and ultimately on 14-10-1977, the report from the Officer-in-charge was received and the learned Magistrate directed that the matter be put up on 4-11-1977. On hearing the counsel for the complainant, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 24-11-1977 directing the Court Sub-Inspector to produce the records of the connected C R. case. The matter was again adjourned on several occasions as the records of the G. R. case had not been received. Thereupon on 13-3-197P, the learned Magistrate passed an order to hold an inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the complainant to produce his witnesses on the next date, i.e., 7-4-1978. The case was thereafter adjourned for more than two years on large number of dates and ultimately on 12-11-1980, the learned Magistrate directed the complainant to come ready with witnesses for the inquiry and the date was fixed to 3-12-1980. On 3-12-1980, the advocate for the complainant filed a petition for time, but the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for time and as ho witnesses were produced, the complaint was dismissed u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. On 3-12-1980, the advocate for the complainant filed a petition for time, but the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for time and as ho witnesses were produced, the complaint was dismissed u/s 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Against this order of the learned Magistrate, the complainant carried a revision to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order has set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate should have considered the materials on record and should have decided the question regarding prima facie nature of the allegation. It is this order of the learned Additional Sessioni Judge which is being impugned in the present revision. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has lost sight of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 13-3-1978 by which the learned Magistrate directed the complainant to produce his witnesses for inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in fact, thereafter the complainant had taken ample number of adjournments to produce witnesses for the inquiry in question Chapter XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the procedure on receipt of complaint. Section 200 of the Code provides that on receipt of the complaint, the Magistrate shall examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses, if any, present. The examination of the complainant as well as the witnesses present is obviously for the purpose of ascertaining whether a prima facie case has been established or not. Section 202 provides for postponement of issue of process. When the' Magistrate thinks it fit to postpone the issue of process . and directs to hold an inquiry u/s 202, the object of holding such inquiry is to decide whether there is sufficient ground to proceed with the matter or not. Section 203 is the power of the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint. Under the said section, if on consideration of the statement of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry held u/s 202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, then he shall dismiss the complaint. Section 203 is the power of the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint. Under the said section, if on consideration of the statement of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry held u/s 202, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, then he shall dismiss the complaint. In the case in hand, the learned Magistrate on receiving the complaint and taking the initial statement of the complainant thought it fit to postpone the issue of process and to hold an inquiry u/s 202. He directed the complainant to produce his witnesses in that inquiry. The complainant took more than two years and yet did not produce any witness. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an order u/s 203 on a finding that there was not sufficient ground to proceed with the case. The learned Additional Sessions judge, however, failed to notice the order of the learned Magistrate by which he directed to hold an inquiry u/s 202. On account of such failure on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the impugned order has been passed by him which is on the face of it illegal. The Magistrate on the materials before him was not satisfied that there are sufficient materials for issue of process and, therefore, he directed to hold an inquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, is in error to again direct the learned Magistrate to come to a conclusion whether a prima facie case exists on the allegation in the complaint petition and on the initial statement of the complainant. This rror has been committed because of the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to notice the order of the learned Magistrate Hated 13-3-1978. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate was fully justified the materials on record to dismiss the complaint petition under 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an error in setting aside the said order on a wrong notion of fact and in ignorance of the material order dated 13-3-1978. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is hereby set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate is affirmed. This Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed