G. D. DUBEY, J. ( 1 ) THE prosecution case was that on the question of demolition of a mera between the field of the parties opposite parties Nos. 2 to 10 had beaten the complainant with fists and kicks. The Fifth Additional Munsif Magistrate, Aligarh had held that the evidence produced by the complainant established a prima facie case under Section 147, 323, 352, 504 and 506, I. P. C. Aggrieved by this order a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge by the opposite parties 2 to 10. The learned Sessions Judge allowed this revision and set aside the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused under the aforesaid sections. Aggrieved by this order of the Sessions Judge the present revision has been filed. ( 2 ) NOTICES were issued to the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 10 asking them to appear and show cause. They were also given notice; that the revision shall be heard and disposed of at the admission stage. Even though notices have been served personally on the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 1 0, none has appeared from their side. ( 3 ) I have gone through the impugned order of the Sessions Judge as well as of the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge had doubted the prosecution story on two counts: firstly: that there was no medical evidence. He stated that it was not believable that there would have been no visible injury, if 8 persons had beaten the complainant. Secondly, it was held by the learned Judge that absence of a prompt first information report also casts shadow of doubt on the prosecution story. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge had entered into the discussion of the evidence. Whether any visible injury was possible or not could not be a basis for coming to the conclusion that no prima facie case was made out. At the stage of summoning the complainant was only to establish the fact that there existed some facts disclosing the necessary ingredients of offence. Since the complainant and his witnesses were stating that 8 persons had voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Rajveer Singh, there was no justification to doubt their veracity simply on this ground that there was no visible injury on his person. Since the complainant and his witnesses were stating that 8 persons had voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Rajveer Singh, there was no justification to doubt their veracity simply on this ground that there was no visible injury on his person. The possibility of visible injury was to be assessed at the final trial when the details of the evidence were evident after examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge had travelled beyond the scope in assessing the evidence in revision. In the revision he was only required to consider the propriety and legality of the order. The learned Magistrate has given a detailed reason while summoning the opposite parties 2 to 10. The evidence disclosed prima facie case. There was no error in that order. Consequently I find that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in setting aside the order of the Magistrate. ( 5 ) THE revision is allowed. The judgment and order of the Sessions Judge is set aside. The order of the learned Magistrate is restored. Lot a copy of this order be sent to the Magistrate concerned to proceed with the case. Revision allowed .