K. C. J. ROY, J. ( 1 ) THE present petitioner was, the complainant in the court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koraput in I. C. C. Case No. 48 of 1986. The allegation in the complaint petition is that in the mid-night at 1. 00 A. M. of 5-11-1986, the accused persons came to the hutment where the complainant was residing with her husband. At that hour of the night, she was sleeping with her husband inside the Jhumpuri. Accused No. 1 broke open the door of the Jhumpuri and entered inside the Jhumpuri after assaulting her husband with a cable belt and drove him out and thereafter he assaulted her and ultimately after making her naked raped her. Accused No. 6, a security officer of the NALCO at Damanjodi where the complainant had her Jhumpuri, entered inside the Jhumpuri and drove her out in naked condition after assaulting her. The complainant, shouted. Hearing her shoutings, the persons living around in hutments came near her hutment. In the complaint petition, she had named Niren Thapa, Puma Bagh and Dalimba as witnesses. The learned S. D. J. M. after perusing the complaint petition decided to hold an enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and the initial statement of the complainant was taken. The statement of the witnesses namely Copin Mardi, Niren Thapa annapurna Bagh did not show anything regarding the rape of the complainant by accused No. 1 or any of the accused persons. The witnesses only stated that when they came near the complainantts hutment they found the husband of the complainant standing outside the Jhumpuri. The complainant and the accused persons were also there. It was night and they woke up from sleep and came near the complainantts hutment. The complainant did not examine any medical, officer who might have examined her after the occurrence nor did she me any medical certificate. ( 2 ) THE accused persons are Officers of the NALCO. Since many people in the area including the Adivasis are in unauthorized occupation of Damanjodi, they are being evicted by the authorities. The Officers who are now named as accused persons, are the people connected in the act of eviction. Out of the accused persons, accused No. 1 is the Land Acquisition Officer, accused No. 2 is a person of the administrative department, accused Nos. The Officers who are now named as accused persons, are the people connected in the act of eviction. Out of the accused persons, accused No. 1 is the Land Acquisition Officer, accused No. 2 is a person of the administrative department, accused Nos. 3 and 4 are Assistant Personal Officers, accused No. 5 is the Personal Officer and accused No. 6 is the Security Officer. ( 3 ) THE learned S. D. J. M. from the evidence did not find prima facie case against the accused persons as there was no evidence to sub-stantiate the serious allegation of rape made in the complaint petition against the accused persons. That apart, he also found that all the witnesses named in the complaint petition were not examined even though it was mandatory before the cognizance is taken. This being a case exclusively triable by the court of session. No explanation had been provided by the complainant for non-examination of Dalimba, one of the witnesses named in the complaint petition. ( 4 ) IN a case of Rabisingh Naik v. Rajun Majhi and others, this Court considered if under the proviso to Section 202 (2), Cr. P. C. the Magistrate is required under the law to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses for their examination on oath. This Court held thus: There is a growing tendency on the part of mischievous litigants to me vexatious and frivolous complaints. Some of the complaints are med solely for harassment. The purpose of a mischievous litigant is achieved when the accused persons are summoned. It is obvious, that a process can be issued on the argument under Section 202, Cr. P. C. , itself, but the legislature in its wisdom does not favour any hasty decision by the Magistrate and wants him to postpone the issue of process if he is not satisfied from the statement of complainant and other material on the record that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The legal Position is that a Magistrate is to act like a reasonable and prudent person for satisfying himself prima facie if there is sufficient ground for proceeding This view is also taken by this Court in another case reported in Magi Nayak and others v. The State of Orissa and Baikunthanath Das. The legal Position is that a Magistrate is to act like a reasonable and prudent person for satisfying himself prima facie if there is sufficient ground for proceeding This view is also taken by this Court in another case reported in Magi Nayak and others v. The State of Orissa and Baikunthanath Das. ( 5 ) IN the case already discussed, Rabisingh Naik v. Rajun Majhi and others (supra) this Court also held that it is open to the complainant to amend his list of witnesses by giving up some of them making specific statement in writing that he wanted to rely only on the remaining witnesses. Unless this is done, by merely refusing to examine some of the witnesses, who are already in the list, would not amount to giving up the witnesses and the Magistrate has no option, but to call upon the complainant to examine all those witnesses. ( 6 ) IN the present case the complainant had not taken steps for examination of Dalimba, a witness named in the complaint petition. Nor did she make a subsequent application for giving up the said witness. Therefore, non-examination of the said witness is rightly held by the S. D. J. M. as the ground for not taking cognizance on the complaint petition. I do not find any merit in this criminal revision and the criminal revision is, accordingly, dismissed.-Revision dismissed.