Order:- Petitioner R. Sivanesan, Sub-Inspector of Police, Erumapatti, seeks to revise the order of the District Magistrate, Salem, setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari, dismissing the complaint of the respondent under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent’s complaint was to the effect that the petitioner illegally arrested him on a false charge of a prohibition offence, as he failed to vote in favour of one Sivagnanam at the election for the chairmanship of the Erumapatti Panchayat Union (the respondent being the President of the Vadugapatti Panchayat which is one of the units of Erumapatti Panchayat Union) as required by the petitioner. According to the complaint of the respondent, when he was proceeding along with one Sengamalai on cycles, the petitioner and a Constable waylaid them and the petitioner beat him with hands and booted leg, and he sustained an injury on his right leg. Even in paragraph 6 of the complaint, the respondent has stated that he told the Medical Officer that he had not consumed any arrack, that he and Sengamalai were beaten while in custody and arrack was smeared on their faces and that the Medical Officer did nothing more than noting the identification marks on him and Sengamalai. It is stated in that paragraph that the complainant and Sengamalai were again beaten at the Police Station. In paragraph 7 of the complaint it is stated that the complainant and Sengamalai were produced before the Sub-Magistrate, Namakkal and then only they came to know that a case for possession of arrack was also filed against them. The complainant has averred in that paragraph that he apprised the Sub-Magistrate, Namakkal, of the assault by the petitioner even at that time. The complaint was presented before the District Magistrate who directed it to be presented before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 27th May, 1965. In the sworn statement, the complainant has stated that the petitioner and two others beat him and Sengamalai and took them to the Police Station. The Doctor’s certificate produced in the case, shows only one abrasion 1/2“x 1/4” on the right foot of the complainant. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant on 27th May, 1965. In the sworn statement, the complainant has stated that the petitioner and two others beat him and Sengamalai and took them to the Police Station. The Doctor’s certificate produced in the case, shows only one abrasion 1/2“x 1/4” on the right foot of the complainant. On 27th May, 1965, the respondent-complainant stated that he had not brought his witnesses and the case was adjourned to 7th June, 1965, on that date, the respondent-complainant produced two witnesses Ramaswami and Kuppuswami, though he had cited as many as nine witnesses in his complaint; and they were examined by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sankari. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed the order under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, dismissing the complaint of the respondent only on 9th June, 1965. I am stating these facts at some length, as one of the contentions of the learned Advocate, for the respondent in support of the order of the District Magistrate, was that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not examine all the witnesses cited by him in the complaint. The respondent-complainant was given time to bring the witnesses and he brought only two witnesses. If really he wanted to examine the other witnesses, he would have made a request either on 7th June, 1965 or at least on 9th June, 1965. In fact even in the grounds of revision before the District Magistrate, there is no ground that the complainant was not given an opportunity to examine all his witnesses. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has commented upon the material discrepancies between the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses and pointed out how it does not corroborate the averments in the complaint. It is unnecessary to repeat what all the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has stated in paragraph 3 of his order. He has rightly pointed out that the medical certificate refers only to one simple injury, namely, an abrasion ½“x ¼” on the right foot dorsal aspect. He has rightly commented on the fact that the complainant did not tell the Doctor that the accused (petitioner) fisted him on the nape of his neck and did not even complain about any pain. He has commented upon other witnesses not having corroborated the version of the complainant about the kicking with booted legs. He has rightly commented on the fact that the complainant did not tell the Doctor that the accused (petitioner) fisted him on the nape of his neck and did not even complain about any pain. He has commented upon other witnesses not having corroborated the version of the complainant about the kicking with booted legs. He has also pointed out the material discrepancies between the averments in the complaint and the evidence. Finally, he has come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint. In my opinion, the order is a well considered order. The main ground on which the learned District Magistrate has set aside the order of dismissal of the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, is that he felt some force in the argument of the learned Advocate for the complainant that it was not the stage for assessing the evidence. In ray view, a Magistrate should assess the evidence at every stage when he has to pass an order though the nature of the assessment should necessarily vary on account of the presence or absence of the accused and other circumstances. One should take note of the averments made in the complaint and the evidence adduced by the complainant and his witnesses in the enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code. The evidence of the complainant and his witnesses has not been tested by crossexamination at that stage. But the evidence can be certainly assessed in the sense whether there are material contradictions or improbabilities in order to find out whether the case is a true one or not. This is what the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has done in this case. In Narayan v. Shankara Singh1, it has been held that a Magistrate is entitled to dismiss a complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, when he finds that there are gross and grave exaggerations in the complaint in which the most serious allegations of grave offences are falsely-interlarded with those of offences of a lesser kind. The effect and scope of the words ‘no sufficient ground’ in section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, have been considered in that decision. The learned Advocate for the respondent relied on the decision of Ramgopal Ganapatri Ruia v. The State of Bombay2, as to the scope of the words “sufficient grounds” in section 209, 210, and 213, Criminal Procedure Code. The effect and scope of the words ‘no sufficient ground’ in section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, have been considered in that decision. The learned Advocate for the respondent relied on the decision of Ramgopal Ganapatri Ruia v. The State of Bombay2, as to the scope of the words “sufficient grounds” in section 209, 210, and 213, Criminal Procedure Code. At page 638 of that decision it has been pointed out that the law in India and the law in England on the question as to what would amount to sufficient grounds for committal appear to be the same. The following statement of the law by Lord Simonds in “Halsbury’s Laws of England” (Vol. 10, 3rd Edn.) has been referred to in the above decision as the correct test to be applied in such cases: “When all the evidence has been heard, the examining justices then present who have heard all the evidence must decide whether the accused is or is not to be committed for trial. Before determining this matter they must take into consideration the evidence and any statement of the accused. If the justices are of opinion that there is sufficient evidence to put the accused upon trial by jury for an indictable offence they must commit him for trial in custody or on bail.” Thus the decision refers to the assessment of the evidence at the committal stage. In fact the decision in Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigoanker3, relied on by the learned Advocate for the respondent-complainant goes to the extent of holding that there is no absolute proposition that a plea of self-defence can in no event be considered by the Magistrate in dealing with a complaint under the provisions of sections 200, 202 and 203, Criminal Procedure Code. It was held in that case that when a Magistrate directs an enquiry under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of a complaint and receives a report from the enquiring officer supporting a plea of self-defence made by the person complained against, it is open to the Magistrate to hold that the plea is correct on the basis of the report and statements of witnesses recorded by the enquiring officer. Having regard to the above facts, it could not be stated that a Magistrate should not assess the evidence when dismissing the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. Having regard to the above facts, it could not be stated that a Magistrate should not assess the evidence when dismissing the complaint under section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, it is the duty of the Magistrate to discuss and assess the evidence of the witnesses examined by him under section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, and he will be failing to exercise jurisdiction if he passes an order without such assessment of evidence. There is absolutely nothing wrong in the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the order of the District Magistrate setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is clearly wrong. The order of the District Magistrate is therefore set aside and the Criminal Revision is allowed. R.M. ----- Revision allowed.