B. P. SINGH, J. This is an application for revision against the judgment and order dated 26. 8. 87 passed by Sri Rakesh Dutt, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura in Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1967 (Ramesh Chand Sharma and others v. State of U. P and another ). 2. The facts leading up to this application for revision may briefly be stated as follows. 3. On 12. 4. 84 Dr. Shiv Shankar Upadhyaya had filed a complaint against Sri Ramesh Chand Sharma and 7 others under Sections 420/468/471 and 120-B I. P. C. in the court of C. J. M. , Mathura. Statement of complainant was recorded on 20. 4. 64 while the witnesses under Section 202 Cr. P. C. were examined on 1-6-84. Another witness was examined under Section 202 Cr. P. C. on 28. 6. 84. Thereafter the learned Magistrate asked the Police Station concerned for a report in the matter. This report was received on 5. 9. 84. Thereafter the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 204 Cr. P. C. on 5. 10. 84 summoning the accused in the case. 4. The accused, Ramesh Chand Sharma and others, went in revision and their revision application (Criminal Revision No. 226 of 1984) was allowed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura on 27. 3. 85. By this judgment and order dated 27. 3. 85 the im pugned order dated 12. 10. 84 summoning Ramesh Chand Sharma and others was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Magistrate concerned for proceeding in accordance with law in the light of the observation made in the body of judgment. In the body of the judgment learned Sessions Judge had observed that when both the parties are claiming the disputed property as rightful persons, no criminal intent can be inferred there any side. 5. After receiving the file back from the court of Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate recorded statements of the witnesses i. e. P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 on 18. 6. 85 unde Section 202 Cr. P. C. on 11. 6. 87 the learned C. J. M. again passed an order under Section 204 Cr. P. C. summoning the accused persons. 6. 6. 85 unde Section 202 Cr. P. C. on 11. 6. 87 the learned C. J. M. again passed an order under Section 204 Cr. P. C. summoning the accused persons. 6. Ramesh Chand Sharma and others again filed a revision and their application for revision (Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1987 Ramesh Chand Sharma and others v. State of U. P and another) was allowed by Sri Rakesh Datt, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura on 25. 8. 87. Through this judgment and order dated 25. 8. 87 learned Sessions Judge again set aside the summoning order passed by the C. J. M. under Section 204 Cr. P. C. and remanded back the case to the trial court with the directions that the learned Magistrate was to record reasons in brief for summoning the accused persons in the case. It is against this judgment and order that the complainant Dr. Shiv Shankar Upadhyaya has filed the present application for revision. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The main contention of the applicants counsel is that the learned Sessions Judge was not acting legally when he had observed in his judgment that the learned C. J. M. was to record his reasons in brief for summoning the accused persons in the case. The scope of the powers of the Magistrate in an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. and the powers of the revisional court under Section 397 Cr. P. C. have been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. It is enough to cite the case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kenjalgi, 1976 SCC (Cri) 507. The scope of the powers of the Magistrate in an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. and the powers of the revisional court under Section 397 Cr. P. C. have been considered by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions. It is enough to cite the case of Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Kenjalgi, 1976 SCC (Cri) 507. Relying upon the cases of Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose AIR 1965 SC 1450 and Yadilal Panchal v. Dattatrava Dulaji Chadigaonkar, AIR 1960 SC 111, 3 the Supreme Court has observed in the above cited cases as follows: "it would thus be clear from the two decisions of this court that the scope of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited - Limited only to the ascertain ment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint - (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court, (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. In fact it is well noticed that in proceedings under Section 202 the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court went on to observe further that - "thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court went on to observe further that - "thus it may be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside. (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value made out absolutely no case against the accused or the complainant does not disclose the essential ingredients of offense which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are penalty absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. " 8. Thus it is obvious that the scope of inquiry by a Magistrate under Section 202 Cr. P. C. is extremely limited. He has to ascertain truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint upon the materials placed by the complainant before him. The Magistrate is not to entertain any plea on behalf of the accused persons for the single reason that the accused has no locus standi at that stage: If the Magistrate has exercised his discretion, the power of the revisional court to interfere in the decision of the Magistrate is also very limited. The revisional court has no power to interfere or to substitute its own discretion over that of the Magistrate where the Magistrate has exercised his discretion judicially. It may be mentioned here that Section 204 Cr. P. C. nowhere provides that the Magistrate was to record reasons for his opinion. This is a departure from Section 203 Cr. P. C. wherein it has been specifically provided that if, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202 Cr. This is a departure from Section 203 Cr. P. C. wherein it has been specifically provided that if, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202 Cr. P. C. the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall dismiss the complaint and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing. Thus it is quite clear that while the Magistrate has to record his reasons briefly while dismissing the complaint under Section 202 Cr. P. C. he is not bound to record his reasons if he summons the accused for atten dance before him under Section 204 Cr. P. C. Judicial discretion has not been defined in any statute but it has been often said that judicial discretion means a discretion which is formed by tradition and has been disciplined by long usage in the system. 9. In the present case it was not open to the learned Sessions Judge to impose his discretion upon the discretion of the learned Magistrate. It was enough on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to observe that the Magistrate was to act in accordance with Law. The Magistrate is expected to know basic principles relating to his powers under Sections 202,203 and 204 Cr. P. C. 10. Under the circumstances this application is liable to be allowed partly. ORDEr The application for revision is partly allowed. The order of the Sessions Judge dated 25. 8. 87 is modified to the extent that the learned Magistrate was not found to record his reasons in case he still chooses to summon the accused under Section 204 Cr. P. C. The stay order dated 9. 11. 87 is hereby set aside. Revision partly allowed. .