B. N. DASH, J, J. ( 1 ) THE order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur selling aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Jaipur (for short Tthe S. D. J. M. T) taking cognizance of the offences under sections 323 and 427, I. P. C. 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 I. C. C. Case No. 7 of 1987 in the court of the S. DJ. M. , Jajpur on 12/1/1987 alleging that on 8/1/1987 at about 12 noon the accused persons Ito 3 (opposite parties 1 to 3 herein) working respectively as Executives 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 Douhabil in the company of five other unknown persons and uprooted her vegetable plants with a view to dig a 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 under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) and decided to hold on inquiry under section 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 had lodged an F. I. R. 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 S. D. J. M. called for a report from the police which having disclosed that the G. R. Case No. 23 of 1967 registered on the basis of the F. I. R. 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 under section 202 which followed thereafter, two witnesses were examined and sketch map of the plot was called for from the Tahesil Office and declaration No. 1 0541-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 those dates are extracted below: 6/11/1987 - Perused the complaint petition, initial deposition of the complainant, statements of P. Ws. 1 and 2 recorded u/s. 202, Cr. P. C. and other relevant documents. I find prima-facie material against the accused persons No. Ito 3 for proceeding u/s. 323/427, I. P. C. Hence cognizance u/s. 323/427, IPC is taken against the accused persons namely Madan Mohan Patnaik, Asutosh Mishra and Ananta Charan Satepathy. 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. S. D. J. M. , Jajpur 7/11/1987, Advocates for the complainant is present. Requisites filed. Issue summons fixing 3/12/1987 for appearance. ( 3 ) BEING dissatisfied by the aforesaid orders, the accused persons filed revision in the court of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack which, on transfer, come 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 S. D. J. M. had not considered certain documents which he had himself called for from different quarters and had not given any reason for proceeding against the present opposite parties. It was also found by him that there was absolutely no consideration as to whether sanction under section 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 Dot sustainable in low and accordingly, he set aside the orders and remitted the matter to the S. D. J. M. for passing appropriate order after further inquiry. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, the impugned orders before him were Dot sustainable in low and accordingly, he set aside the orders and remitted the matter to the S. D. J. M. 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 under Section 204 (1) of the Code a Magistrate is not required to record any reason and the 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 complainant and, of all the-witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation, if any, under Section 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 Id the learned counsel, the impugned order which directs the learned S. D. J. M. to consider certain documents cannot be sustained particularly when those arc extraneous matters. The soundness of these contentions may now be examined. ( 5 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it may be noted that after an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, a Magistrate has to dismiss the complaint under Section 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 under Section 204 (1) if on consideration of the materials noted in Section 203, 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 reasons for so doing. It is submitted by Mr. It is submitted by Mr. B. B. Rath, the learned counsel for the opposite parties that 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 under Section 202. The argument seems to be quite convincing but however, the view taken by this Court on this question docs not appear to be uniform. In the case of Nirod Chandra Misra Y. Dijabar Swain, it has been observed by a learned Single Judge of this Court that: irrespective of whether he is required to record the reasons or not, the approach of the Magistrate shall be the same where he dismisses the complaint under Section 203 or issue process under Section 204in Sri Radhanath Rath and others v. Sri Janardan Sahu Danei Sahu,, another learned Single Judge of this court took the view of Para 9 that brief reasons should be recorded by the Magistrate in support of his view of proceeding against an accused under Section 204 (1) of the Code. In Hatia Swain Nata Swain v. Chintamani Mishra, another learned Single Judge of this court took a contrary view relying on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Swarna Anand and others v. Chief Judicial Magistrate and another4, and also the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hafizer Rahman v. Aminal Haque5. The earlier two decision 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 under Section 204 (1) of the Code. That being so, the first contention raised bi Mr. Dhal for the petitioner must fail. 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 under Section 204 (1) of the Code. That being so, the first contention raised bi 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 S. D. J. M. did not ulke 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 F. I. R. previously lodged by the complainant. Law is well settled that extraneous matters cannot be taken into consideration by a Magistrate while acting under Section 204 (1) of the Code (vide Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and others6, 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 S. D. J. M. 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 S. D. J. M. 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 S. D. J. M. was a non-speaking one cannot be found fault with. The second contention, there fore, is rejected being without force. Both the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner having, thus, failed, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed.