S. R. BHARGAVA, J. This revision is directed against order of II Addi tional Sessions Judge, Mathura, passed in Criminal revision, allowing the revision and setting aside order of the Magistrate dated 23rd May, 1990 summoning the opposite party and the two others under Section 319, Cr. P. C. 2. Facts giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist Manohar Chaturvedi is a retired I. P. S. Officer and resides at Lucknow. He has property at Mathura also. He filed a criminal complaint against Peradeep Kumar and unknown persons (described as opposite parties) for offences under Sections 427 and 506 I. P. C. After recording statement of the revisionist under Station 200 Cr. P. C. Magistrate directed enquiry to be made by police. After enquiry police submitted charge-sheet against Pradeep Kumar only. During trial part statement of the revisionist was recorded. Then the prosecution moved application under Section 319, Cr. P. C. for summoning some other persons including opposite party. By order dated 2ird May, 1990 Magistrate summoned opposite party Moti Lal and two other persons, namely, Chhotey Lal and Arun Kumar. 3. Only Moti Lal preferred revision against the said order. Learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the revision. He perused the statement of revisionist Manohar Chaturvedi. He referred to the evidence collected during enquiry by the police which he called investigation. He found that the testi mony of the revisionist was hearsay. He concluded that there was no evidence for summoning under Section 319, Cr. P. C. He allowed the revision and set aside the summoning order. 4. Against this, complainant Manohar Chaturvedi has come to this Court in this revision. 5. Before proceeding further it would be worthwhile to mention that the revisionist argued revision in person and cited number of rulings for stating broad Principles. There can be no dispute or quarrel with the settled principles of law. There can be no doubt in the principle of law that a complaint can be filed against unknown persons and it is for the Magistrate to enquire and find out the real culprits. He may conduct the euquiry himself or may get the enquiry made by police. There can be also no doubt in the Principle that for judging ptima facie case revisional Court cannot interfere with the discretion of the lower Court. He may conduct the euquiry himself or may get the enquiry made by police. There can be also no doubt in the Principle that for judging ptima facie case revisional Court cannot interfere with the discretion of the lower Court. Then there can be no doubt in the principle of law that the power under Section 319, Cr. P. C. can be exercised at any stage. 6. Then in this revision provisions of Section 319 (1), Cr. P. C. may be cited as under : - "section 319 (1) where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed. " From the words "in the Course of any inquiry into or trial it appears from the evidence" occurring in this section it is clear that for summoning a person uot being an accused in the case the Court should rely upon only the evidence which has been adduced before it. For summoning or for not summoning a person, not being an accused, under this provision Court should not rely upon any evidence collected during inquiry or investiga tion by the police or which is otherwise in possession of the prosecution. Woidsn appears from the evidence that any person has committed any offence Which he appears to have committed" indicate that for purposes of summoning a person not being an accused the Court should oniy find out a prima facie case against such a person. There must be evidence against such person for establishing a prima facie case. 7. In the instant case it is not disputed that the complainant and revi sionist Manohar Chaturvedi was not present at the scene of crime and was not an eye-witness. He got the information about mischief with his folding bed meant for the police constables or when he came to Mathura following morning. Provocation or intimidation, as it is pointed out in the affidavit filed by the revisionist, has to be proved by direct evidence. But it was urged by the revisionist that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence constituting prima facie case against the opposite party and other persons. Provocation or intimidation, as it is pointed out in the affidavit filed by the revisionist, has to be proved by direct evidence. But it was urged by the revisionist that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence constituting prima facie case against the opposite party and other persons. I have gone through the statement of the revisionist recorded by the Magistrate. It does not contain all the circumstances pointed out in the affidavit of the revisipnist. There can no doubt that an offence can be established by both direct or circumstantial evidence. But even prima facie case can be made out only when the circum stances are brought in the evidence before the Court. This Court need not prejudice the case of the complaint by making any general observation regard ing the merits of the case, As yet there is no evidence against the opposite party, Chhotey Lal and Arun Kumar for constituting. prima facie case of offence under Sections 427, 504 or 506, I. P. C. Hence in substance, the order of the lower revisional Court is correct. If alter further evidence all the circum stances pointed out by the revisionist come in evidence the Magistrate shall be at libearty to reconsider the matter of summoning the opposite party and other persons under Section 319, Cr. P. C. 8. Hence, in result, revision is dismissed. Stay order dated 19-11-1990 is vacated. Revision dismissed. .