Judgment : This revision is filed against the order of the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai, in C.M.P. No. 273 of 1987 in S.C.No. 61 of 1987 refusing to discharge the petitioners under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. These petitioners stand trial before the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Madurai, for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 452, 336, 324 and 307 read with Sec. 511, Indian Penal Code, on a private complaint. The petitioners filed the petition before the trial Judge to discharge them under Sec. 227, Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that they have been prosecuted only for the purpose of harassing them and the property in question belonged to them and there are no sufficient materials to frame charge against them and therefore, they are entitled to be discharged. As this petition was dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the petitioners have come forward with this revision. Two points alone have been urged before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners and they are the absence of the names of these petitioners in the complaint given against them to the police and secondly non-examination of all the witnesses given in the private complaint. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Dinakaran argues that the complainant Muthukaruppa Thevar gave the complaint to Othappanaickenur Sub Inspector of Police on 25. 1981 in respect of the occurrence mentioned in the complaint and in the complaint he would state only the names of the accused 1 to 3 and 5 but the other names were not mentioned in the complaint and only for the purpose of harassing the other accused, they have been dubbed as accused in this private complaint filed nearly 7 months after the alleged occurrence and therefore the proceedings against them has to be quashed and discharge them. The learned counsel Mr. Dinakaran, in support of his argument, relies upon a decision of this Court in Manikandan v. Jayaraman, 1987 L.W. (Crl.) 385 wherein the proceedings against the accused, whose names were not found in the complaint given to the police, was quashed. That was a case in which the names of certain persons alone were mentioned in the complaint and they alone were alleged to have committed the offence. But later on, when the private complaint was filed, some others also were described as the participants of the crime. That was a case in which the names of certain persons alone were mentioned in the complaint and they alone were alleged to have committed the offence. But later on, when the private complaint was filed, some others also were described as the participants of the crime. But in the present case, on a reference to the complaint given to the Sub Inspector of Police, Othappanaickenur Police Station on 25. 1981, it is mentioned that the accused 1 to 3 and 5 and another 50 persons, armed with sticks and aruval, came to his house, that first accused threatened to shoot him with the gun and accused 2, 3 and 5 and the son of One Vellaichamy attacked them with sticks, aruval and stones. In the complaint itself, it is specifically mentioned that apart from the four male persons, 50 others also came armed with deadly weapons to attack him and his family members. As the complaint was given on the same day, the complainant might not have known the names of those persons at the time when he gave the complaint to the police. But as the private complaint was given in January 1982, that is nearly 7 months after occurrence, there is possibility for the complainant to ascertain the names of others. Therefore, it cannot be stated for the reason that all the names mentioned in the private complaint do not find a place in the complaint given before the police on 25. 1981 such of those, whose names are not found in the police complaint, are entitled to be discharged. In view of the specific mention in the private complaint that 50 others also accompanied the named accused, the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable for this case. Therefore, the first ground urged for the discharge of those persons will not arise in this case. 4. The next ground namely the non-examination of all the witnesses mentioned in the private complaint is said to be a flaw in the committal proceedings of the learned Magistrate. In the private complaint filed before the Magistrate, the names of 19 persons are mentioned as witnesses for the complainant. Admittedly only 10 witnesses were examined and rest of the 9 witnesses were not examined by the complainant, before the Magistrate, during the committal proceedings. In the private complaint filed before the Magistrate, the names of 19 persons are mentioned as witnesses for the complainant. Admittedly only 10 witnesses were examined and rest of the 9 witnesses were not examined by the complainant, before the Magistrate, during the committal proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, under Sec. 202(2) of the Code, in the committal proceedings when the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate should have called upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examined them on oath, but as this mandatory provision was not followed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Usilampatti, while committing this case to the Court of Session, the order of committal is not according to law and therefore the same has to be set aside. But the reply by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) is that the word ‘all his witnesses" in Sec. 202(2) of the Code refers to the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, that it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to examine all the witnesses whose names find a place in the list of witnesses, because it is the discretion of the prosecution either to examine a witness or dispose with him, that the words, "all his witnesses" indicate only the witnesses whom the prosecution relies upon and therefore the prosecution examined only 10 witnesses, who are relied upon to prove the occurrence and the set of the 9 witnesses were not examined before the committal Magistrate and there is nothing illegal in the committal order of the learned Magistrate. A similar question arose in Govindaraja Pillai v. Thangavelu Pillai, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 25, which was a revision by way of reference on the question whether all the witnesses cited in a case triable exclusively in the Court of Session instituted on a private complaint, should be examined by the committing court as contemplated under the Proviso to Sec. 202(2) of the Code. Ratnavel Pandian, J. (as he then was) referring to various decisions of this Court and also the other High Courts, has ultimately ruled that all the witnesses cited in the complaint should be examined by the committal court. Ratnavel Pandian, J. (as he then was) referring to various decisions of this Court and also the other High Courts, has ultimately ruled that all the witnesses cited in the complaint should be examined by the committal court. When the case was instituted on a private complaint, the courts have felt that to enable the accused to understand what for those witnesses were cited, and what they would speak about, the examination of all those witnesses is imperative because unlike the cases instituted on police report where the statement of the witnesses under Sec. 161 of the Code will be provided, the accused in the private complaint must be provided with the details of the matters on which those witnesses were to speak, before the trial court, namely the Sessions Court, making it as an absolute necessity, to examine all the witnesses cited in the private complaint. The learned Judge observed as follows: "27. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the complainant should be called upon to produce all his witnesses for examination on oath by the court when it resorts to an enquiry as per the Proviso to Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 202. On this point also, there is a conflict of views. In Paranjothi Udayar v. State, 1976 Crl.L.J. 598, Krishnaswamy Reddy, J., has expressed the view that the recording of statements of all witnesses on oath as provided under the Proviso to Sec. 202(2) and furnishing of copies of such statements as provided under Sec. 208(1) are mandatory. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Sulaiman v. Eachara Warrier, 1978 M.L.J. (Crl.)639, has ruled that the Proviso to Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 202 makes it obligatory on his (Magistrate’s) part to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and then to examine them on oath. The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Bhargavi Amma v. Ravindran Nair, 1976 Crl.L.J. 1279, reaffirms the above view holding that the proviso makes it obligatory on the Magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses and examine them. In Murugaiyan v. Jayaveera Pandi Nadar, 1979 L.W. (Crl.) 199. The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Bhargavi Amma v. Ravindran Nair, 1976 Crl.L.J. 1279, reaffirms the above view holding that the proviso makes it obligatory on the Magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses and examine them. In Murugaiyan v. Jayaveera Pandi Nadar, 1979 L.W. (Crl.) 199. I have expressed the view that if the Magistrate has decided to resort to an enquiry under Sec. 202, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath and issue process only if there is sufficient ground for further proceeding." From the view expressed above, the purpose of examining all the witnesses in the committal court is to provide benefit to the accused to know the nature of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to rely upon against him so as to enable him to prepare his defence after the copies of such documents are furnished to him under Sec. 202 of the Code and also to enable the court to control the proceedings. If the witnesses were examined in the Sessions Court without examining them in the committal court, naturally the accused will be taken by surprise at the sessions trial with regard to the evidence he would give. Therefore, only to safeguard the interests of the accused, the Magistrate has to examine the witnesses on oath and record their statements under Sec. 202(2) of the Code. The learned Judge, Ratnavel Pandian, J., (as he then was) observes in paragraph 24 of the judgment. “24..... Therefore, only to safeguard the interests of the accused, the Magistrate has to examine the witnesses on oath and record their statements under Sec. 202(2) of the Code. The learned Judge, Ratnavel Pandian, J., (as he then was) observes in paragraph 24 of the judgment. “24..... I would like to re-emphasize the view taken in Murugaiyan’s Case, 1979 L.W. (Crl.) 199, stating that if such a course is adopted it would partly be for the benefit of the accused and enable him to know the nature of the evidence which the complainant proposes to adduce against him and partly for the benefit of the court enabling it to control the proceedings and decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for further proceedings.” In Paranjothi Udayar v. State, 1976 Crl.L.J. 598, Krishnaswamy Reddy, J. also observes: “In cases instituted other than on a police report, the Legislature in its wisdom has thought of providing the same facility and benefit to the accused and, therefore, the examination of the witnesses by the Magistrate in a case exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions was made obligatory, so that the accused may have the copies of such statements and other documents, if any, mentioned in Clauses (ii) and (iii) of Sec. 208 furnished to him and have the benefit of preparing his defence as an accused in a police case will have.” Therefore, for the witnesses, who were to be examined in the Sessions Court, the nature of their evidence must be made known to the accused by examining those witnesses under Sec. 202(2) of the Code. If this rationale is applied, it may appear that those witnesses who are not proposed to be examined in the Sessions Court need not be examined before the committal court. It is true that it is left to the complainant to choose his witnesses for examination before the Sessions Court and he may dispense with some of the witnesses whom he did not rely upon. Sometimes, some of the witnesses, who were examined but dispensed with by the complainant,in the Sessions Court might have deposed before the committal court giving certain details which may be useful for the accused and the accused, in that event, may call that witness in support of his defence. Sometimes, some of the witnesses, who were examined but dispensed with by the complainant,in the Sessions Court might have deposed before the committal court giving certain details which may be useful for the accused and the accused, in that event, may call that witness in support of his defence. Therefore, the examination of all the witnesses before the committal court is made obligatory to provide all information to the accused and also to give him the reasonable opportunity to support his defence version. Therefore, the examination of all the witnesses cited in the complaint has become a necessity to safeguard the interests of the accused also. I respectfully agree with the view taken above in Govindaraja Pillai v. Thangavelu Pillai, 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 25 (cited above). 5. In this case, the Magistrate, while committing the case, has examined only 9 witnesses out of 19 witnesses cited in the complaint. As he has not examined all the witnesses and complied with the direction of Sec. 202(2), Proviso of the Code, the order of committal is unsustainable. 6. On the second ground urged before me, the order of committal passed by the learned Magistrate, Usilampatti, is quashed and the matter will be remitted back to the committal court. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, is directed to restore the proceedings to the file and call upon the complainant to produce all the other witnesses and examine them on oath before the final order is passed by him according to law.