Order.- These two Revision Petitions relate to an enquiry commenced under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the pendency of those proceedings the Court below was requested by the petitioner in these two Revision Petitions to summon a Sub-Inspector and a Patwari to give evidence in the case. The Court below thought that the Sub-Inspector’s evidence was unnecessary, but said nothing about the evidence of the Patwari which the petitioner wished to produce. The Magistrate accordingly rejected the applications presented by the petitioner, and these Revision Petitions are directed against that order made by the Court below. It seems to me that what the Court below did in this case was to shut out relevant evidence. It is explained to me by Mr. Datar that the evidence of the Sub-Inspector was necessary to prove certain documents on which the petitioner relied and if that was so, it could not be said that the evidence of the Sub-Inspector was irrelevant. The purpose of the examination of the Patwari is, according to Mr. Datar,. similar. That being the position, the evidence of the Sub-Inspector and the Patwari was relevant evidence in the case, and the Court below was not right in refusing permission to the petitioner to examine them as his witnesses. Mr. Zakaulla, however, raised a contention that the examination of witnesses in a proceeding under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure was riot permissible and that a Court enquiring into a matter arising under that section has no power to record oral evidence. In support of that contention, Mr. Zakaulla relied on sub-section (4) of section 145 which requires a Magistrate enquiring in to a matter under section 145 to peruse the statements, documents and affidavits produced by the parties and conclude the enquiry on the basis of those materials. But this argument addressed by Mr. In support of that contention, Mr. Zakaulla relied on sub-section (4) of section 145 which requires a Magistrate enquiring in to a matter under section 145 to peruse the statements, documents and affidavits produced by the parties and conclude the enquiry on the basis of those materials. But this argument addressed by Mr. Zakaulla overlooks sub-section (9) of section 145 which reads: (9) “The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend c:r to produce any document or thing.” It is, in my opinion, clear that the provisions of sub-section (4) are controlled by the provisions of sub-section (9) and that a Magistrate enquiring into a matter arising under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure is not precluded from recording oral evidence if he considers such evidence to be necessary. These Revision Petitions are allowed, the orders made by the Court below are set aside and in their place I substitute an order that the witnesses whom the petitioner wanted to be examined shall be summoned. S.V.S. ----- Petitions allowed.