JUDGMENT : B.N. Dash, J. - The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur setting aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Jajpur (for short 'the S. D. J. M.') taking cognizance of the offences Under Sections 323 and 427, IPC, and directing issue of process against the present opposite parties is under challenge in this revision. 2. The present petitioner, as complainant, filed a complaint petition in ICC Case No. 7 of 1987 in the Court of the S. D. J. M., Jajpur on 12-1-1987 alleging that on 8-1-1987 at about 12 noon the accused persons 1 to 3 (opp. parties 1 to 3 herein) working respectively as Executive Engineer, Sub-Divisional Officer and Overseer in the Irrigation Division, Jajpur came upon her land in plot No. 37 under Khata No. 385 of mouza-Dobhaoil in the company of five other unknown persons and uprooted her vegetable, plants with a view to dig drain and when she raised protest and stood on the land with a view to prevent them from digging earth, the accused No. 1 gave her a push and the other two accused persons dragged her out of the land. On receipt of such complaint the learned S. D. J. M. recorded the initial statement of the complainant u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') and decided to hold an inquiry u/s 202. inasmuch as the accused persons were Government servants. Before commencement of the inquiry' the complainant filed a petition informing the Court that prior to her filing the complaint, she bad lodged an FIR at Mangalpur Police Station and prayed to call for a report from the said police station and also to direct the police for the arrest of the opposite parties. Thereupon, the learned SDJM called for a report from the police which having disclosed that the G. R. Case No. 23 of 1987 registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant had ended in submission of final report, he called for the record of that case and found that the final report had been accepted by him. Thereupon, the learned SDJM called for a report from the police which having disclosed that the G. R. Case No. 23 of 1987 registered on the basis of the FIR lodged by the complainant had ended in submission of final report, he called for the record of that case and found that the final report had been accepted by him. During the inquiry u/s 202 which followed thereafter, two witnesses were examined and sketch map of the plot was called for from the Tahasil Office and declaration No. 10541-R dated 12-2-1965 published in Orissa Gazette No. 315 dated 11-3-1965 was called for from the office of the Irrigation Division and cognizance of the offence was taken on 6-11-1987 and processes were directed to be issued on the next day i. e. 7-11-1987. Orders of these dates are extracted below : "6-11-1987-Perused the complaint 'petition, initial deposition of the complainant, statements of PWs I and 2 recorded u/s 202, Cr PC and other relevant documents. I find prima facie material against the accused persons No. 1 to 3. for proceeding u/s 323/427, IPC. Hence cognisance u/s 323/427, IPC is taken against the accused persons, namely, Madan Mohan Patnaik, Asutosh Mishra and Ananta Charan Satpathy. Complainant is directed to file requisites and furnish the names of the fathers of the accused persons in course of the day for issue of process against the accused persons. Call on 7-11-1987 for further order. SDJM, Jajpur 7-11-1987 Advocate for the complainant is present. Requisites filed. Issue summons fixing 3-12-1987 for appearance. SDJM, Jajpur 3. Being dissatisfied by the aforesaid orders, the accused persons filed revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge,Cuttack which, on transfer, came to be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jajpur. It was found by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that while taking cognizance of the offence and directing issue of process, the learned SDJM had not considered certain documents which he had himself called for from different quarters and has not given any reason for proceeding against the present opposite parties. It was also found by him then there was absolutely no1 consideration as to whether sanction u/s 197 of the Code was necessary for proceeding against the accused persons who might have gone to the spot for supervising the work of digging earth in discharge of their official duties. It was also found by him then there was absolutely no1 consideration as to whether sanction u/s 197 of the Code was necessary for proceeding against the accused persons who might have gone to the spot for supervising the work of digging earth in discharge of their official duties. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, the impugned orders before him were not sustainabble in law and accordingly, he set aside the . orders and remitted the matter to the SDJM for passing appropriate order after further inquiry. Being aggrieved by such order, the present revision has been filed. 4. Mr. D.P. Dhal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised two contentions. His first contention is that before directing issue of process u/s 204(1) of the Code a Magistrate is not required to record any reason thd that impugned order of remand having been passed basing on a contrary view is, therefore, not sustainable. His second contention is that before directing issue of process a Magistrate is required to consider only the allegations in the complaint petition, the sworn statement of the complaint and of all the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, u/s 202 of the Code to form his opinion as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not and, therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order which directs the learned SDJM to consider certain documents cannot be sustained particularly when those are extraneous matters. The soundness of these contentions may now be exmined. 5. So far as the first contention is concerned, it may be noted that after inquiry u/s 202 of the Code, a Magistrate has to dismiss the complaint u/s 203, if on a consideration of the materials noted therein he is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding and in such event, he is required to record briefly the reasons for so doing or he is to issue process u/s 204(1) if on consideration of the materials noted in Section 20, he forms an opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused but in such event there is no statutory mandate to the Magistrate to record any brief reason for so doing. It is submitted by Mr. It is submitted by Mr. B.B. Rath, the learned counsel for the opposite parties while directing for issue of process, a Magistrate is also required to record brief reasons for doing so because he had entertained doubt about the allegations made in the complaint petition even after recording the sworn statement of the complainant for which he had directed an inquiry u/s 202. The argument seems to be quite convincing but however, the view taken by this Court on this question does not appear to be uniform. ln the case of Nirod Chandra Misra Vs. Dijabara Swain, it has been observed by a* learned Single Judge of this Court that : "......irrespective of whether he is required to record the reason or not, the approach of the Magistrate shall be the same where he dismisses the complaint u/s 203 or issue process u/s 204......" In Sri Radhanath Rath and Ors. v. Sri Janardan Sahu alias Danei Sahu 1987 (II) OLR 659 another learned Single Judge of this Court took the view at para 9 that brief reasons should be recorded by the Magistrate in support of his view of proceeding against an accused u/s 204(1) of the Code. Hatia Swain alias Nata Swain v. Chintamani Misra (1989) 2 OCR 453 another learned Single Judge of this Court took a contrary view relying on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Anirudh Singh Azad and Another Vs. The State of Bihar, and also the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hafizar Rahman Vs. Aminal Hoque, .The earlier two decisions of this Court referred to above were not placed before the learned Sessions Judge who took the contrary view. Relying on the earlier two decisions of this Court, I accept the contention raised by Mr B.B. Rath and hold that a Magistrate is required to give brief reasons while directing issue of process against an accused u/s 204(1) of the Code. That being so the first contention raised by Mr. Dhal for the petitioner must fail. 6. Relying on the earlier two decisions of this Court, I accept the contention raised by Mr B.B. Rath and hold that a Magistrate is required to give brief reasons while directing issue of process against an accused u/s 204(1) of the Code. That being so the first contention raised by Mr. Dhal for the petitioner must fail. 6. As regards the second contention, it may be stated that according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned SDJM did not take into consideration the declaration and notification showing acquisition of the land in question by the Government for public purposes and also the final report submitted by the police in connection with the FIR previously lodged by the complainant, law is well settled that extraneous matters cannot be taken into consideration by a Magistrate while acting u/s 204(1) of the Code (vide Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, ) but the question arises whether the aforesaid documents are extraneous for consideration. It is seen that those documents had been brought to record either at the instance of the complainant or at the instance of the SDJM and there is no controversy that they give a picture as to whether the complainant or the accused persons were in possession of the disputed land at the material time. That being so, it can never be said that they are extraneous matters and should not have been considered by the learned SDJM. That being so, the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there was non-consideration of some material documents and as such, the order of the learned SDJM was a non-speaking one, cannot be found fault with. The second contention, therefore, is rejected being without force. 7. Both the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner having thus, failed, the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed