Honble SHARMA, J.–Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in M/s. Pepsi Foods case (1) propounded that ``Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law can not be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magis- trate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. (2). In view of the aforesaid judicial precedent laid down by the Apex Court, I proceed to consider the controversy posed before me for adjudication in the instant revisions. (3). First some facts. A complaint instituted by complainant Non- petitioner No.2 against the petitioners under Sections 469, 505, 500 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Beawar, was forwarded under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to police Station Beawar City on September 1, 1994. The Police Station Beawar City on Sept. 7,1994 registered FIR No. 196/94 and investigation commenced. Sum and substance of the allegations made in the complaint was that the accused petitioners entered into a conspiracy to defame the complainant and forged a ``complaint letter addressed to Higher Education Minister Rajasthan in the name of fictitious sender `Harish Kumar Satlani. This forged letter was communicated to Ugam Raj Mehta M.L.A. and to all news papers. In the said forged letter certain defamatory statements were made against the complainant which were false and calculated to defame the complaint. (4). Police Station Beawar City on October 31,1994 submitted Final Report on the ground that original letter was not made available by the complainant and from the investigation no cognizable case made out. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Beawar did not accept the F.R. and vide order dated July 31, 1995 directed fresh investigation in the matter. (5). Fresh investigation was conducted by the P.S. Beawar City and again on December 25, 1995 Final Report was submitted. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Beawar did not accept the F.R. and vide order dated July 31, 1995 directed fresh investigation in the matter. (5). Fresh investigation was conducted by the P.S. Beawar City and again on December 25, 1995 Final Report was submitted. Learned Court of ACJM Beawar vide its order dated April 2, 1996 took cognizance under section 500 IPC and the accused petitioners were ordered to be summoned. (6). An application under section 204 Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioners in view of K.M. Mathews case (2), for recalling the order dated April 2, 1996 but the said application was dismissed vide order dated September 7, 1996. (7). The accused petitioners have called in question the said orders in the instant revisions. (8). I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. (9). The contention of Mr. S.R. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that complaint involving non-cognizable offences could not have been forwarded to the Police Station, is devoid of force. A police officer can investigate even a non-cognizable case if directed as such by the Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. (10). But there is an inherent infirmity in the case. Admittedly photostat copy of the alleged forged defamatory letter was only made available to the investigating officer. Even original document was not produced before the learned court below. The complainant further failed to explain as to what were the circumstances under which the Photostat copy was prepared and who was in possession of the original document at the time its photostat was taken. There is also no other material on record to indicate that the original document was lost or destroyed. The document upon which the whole structure of allegations was raised, was missing and the lear- ned Magistrate while adopting the role of silent spectator, issued process against the accused petitioners mechanically. There is also no other material on record to indicate that the original document was lost or destroyed. The document upon which the whole structure of allegations was raised, was missing and the lear- ned Magistrate while adopting the role of silent spectator, issued process against the accused petitioners mechanically. The photostat copy of a document even at the time of taking cognizance of offence or issuance of process, can not be taken to be above suspicion learned court below in the impugned order dated Sept.9, 1996 gave a reference of another photostat copy of letter, said to have been written by accused petitioner Archna Chaudhary to one Pradeep and observed that writings of the said latter ought to have been got compared with the writings of alleged defamatory letter by the investigating officer, it is thus evident that the impugned orders of the court below are based on the appreciation of Photostat copies of the documents and in my considered opinion are wholly erroneous and based on com- plete ignorance of statutory provisions of law. It appears that learned Magistrate set law into motion as a matter of course. Indisputably the alleged defamatory letter is said to have been written by one `Harish Kumar Satlani. Therefore it was incumbent upon the complainant to exfacie establish that no such Harish Kumar Satlani exists. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. complainant deposed that he only inquired in the `Nand Nagar Area about Harish Kumar Satlani. He further deposed that one Jai Prakash Typist admitted having himself typed the alleged defamatory letter on being pursuaded by accused petitioner Jai Prakash Tailor but Jai Prakash Typist was not made the accused. The Investigating Officer examined Jai Prakash Typist under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but found him a liar and expressed as such in the Final Report. Learned Court below without properly discussing the contents of F.R. took cognizance of offence. Even while disposing the application of the petitioners under section 204 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate placed reliance on the statements of Jai Prakash Typist and Prakash Arya, without referring the opinion of Investigating Officer about those witnesses that they were untrustworthy. (11). Thus it is abundantly clear that the learned court below has committed illegality in taking cognizance of offence and in rejecting the application of the petitioners submitted under section 204 Cr.P.C. (12). Resultantly, the revisions succeed and are hereby allowed. (11). Thus it is abundantly clear that the learned court below has committed illegality in taking cognizance of offence and in rejecting the application of the petitioners submitted under section 204 Cr.P.C. (12). Resultantly, the revisions succeed and are hereby allowed. The orders dated April 2,1996 and September 7, 1996 of the learned ACJM Beawar shall stand set aside, Record be sent back forthwith.