P. K. BAHRI, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated February 23, 1981, by which he has allowed the criminal revision filed by the complainant and required the Metropolitan Magistrate to serve notice on the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ipc ) as well. ( 2 ) FACTS, in brief, are that the complainant, who is a landlord had filed a complaint against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 341, 506 read with the allegations that the complainant on June 22,. 1979. at about 10. 00 A. M. was dragged from the staircase leading to the second floor from the first floor and was held out threat that he would not be allowed to go to the second floor at any time and he was given abuses. The Magistrate after recording preliminary evidence had directed for service of notice on the petitioners for an offence punishable bunder Section 506 Part I, 1pc and had discharged the accused for offence under Section 341 1pc. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has only, contended that the revisional court has no power to direct, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction,. the service of notice on the petitioners for offence punishable under Section ,341 Indian Penal Code and at the most the revisional court could have directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to hold further inquiry into the matter. He has made reference to Section 398 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) in this respect. I do not find any merit in this contention Section 398 of the Cods reads as follows: "on examining any record under Section 397 or otherwise, the High Court or the Sessions Judge ray direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate by himself or by any of the Magistrates subordinate to him to make, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate may himself make, or direct any subordinate Magistrate to make, further inquiry into any complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 or sub-section (4) of Section 204, or into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged: PROVIDED that no Court shall make. any direction under this section for inquiry into the case of any person who has been discharged unless such person has bad an opportunity if showing cause why such direction should not be made. " ( 4 ) A bare perusal of the Section shows that the High Court or the Sessions Court has the discretion to direct the Magistrate concerned to further inquire into the complaint after the complaint had been initially dismissed by the Magistrate under Section 203 of sub-section (4) of Section 204 of the Code. But it does not mean that the revisional court has no jurisdiction or power to reverse the finding of the Magistrals and give its own finding. Taking the prima fade view of the allegations made in the complaint read with preliminary evidence led to show as to what offence has been committed by the accused prima facie. Sections 399 and 401 of the Code confer the powers on the Sessions Court as well as on the High Court the powers of revisional court and it clearly mentions that revisional court shall have some power as conferred on the Court of Appeal by Sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 and Section 386 of the Code gives sample power to the appellate court to reverse any finding of the lower court and give its own finding on the evidence appearing on the recurd. Hence, it cannot be urged that the Sessions Court has no rower to reverse the finding of the Magistrate by which he held that no offence under Section 34l Indian Penal Code prima facie appears to have been made out against the petitioners and to give its own finding that prima facie such an offence stood committed. It is obvious that once the revisional court has given a finding on this aspect the Magistrate has no option but to serve the notice of the said offence also on the petitioners. This Court had held similarly in Crimiral Revision No. 234/89. Dr. Sharma s Nursing Home v. State, decided on March 26. 1990. It is not necessary to refer to the judgments of other High Courts on this point. ( 5 ) NO other point has been urged. ( 6 ) I find no merit in this revision petition which 1. hereby dismiss. The trial court shall now proceed further in the matter. 1990. It is not necessary to refer to the judgments of other High Courts on this point. ( 5 ) NO other point has been urged. ( 6 ) I find no merit in this revision petition which 1. hereby dismiss. The trial court shall now proceed further in the matter. The record of the lower court be returned immediately.