JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel. J, (Oral) - Heard learned counsel. 2. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.4.2002, passed by learned sessions judge, Una in criminal Revision No. 32 of 2001. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved from the said order, whereby revision filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 against the summoning order issued by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una dated 28.9.2001, has been allowed and thus dismissing the Complaint filed by the petitioner under section 500 of the I.P.C. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the time of admission, forcefully urged that the revisional court below has committed grave illegality as well as impropriety in passing the impugned order while allowing the revision petition. According to him there was overwhelming, reliable land sufficient evidence on the basis whereof summoning order was legal and valid besides being justified as per provisions of section 499 read with section 500 of the I.P.C. According to him prima facie case was made out from such evidence. Therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. With a view to advance his submission, Mr. Sharma submitted that statement of CW-1 Des Raj clearly established and proved Ext. CW-I/B the resolution which as per petitioner defamed him is extracted herein below 6. In addition to this Mr. Sharma also placed reliance on the statement of CW-3 Gurbachan Lal as well the petitioner. 7. He also read in verbatim the order passed by the Collector, Una in Lambardar case No. 34/98, decided on 28.8.2000 in the matter of appointment of Lambardar of village Samur kalan, Tehsil and District Una. 8. When a reference is made to the statement of CWs as well as to the order of the District Collector, Una, it is clear that except petitioner and his witness CW-3 Gurbachan Lal, the order in not appointing the petitioner as lambardar passed by the Collector Una in the aforesaid file does not make a reference directly, indirectly or even remotely to Ext. CWI/B. So far CW-1Des Raj is concerned, he has only proved the certified copies of the order of Collector, as well as Ex. CWI/B extracted here-in-above. 9. CWI/B. So far CW-1Des Raj is concerned, he has only proved the certified copies of the order of Collector, as well as Ex. CWI/B extracted here-in-above. 9. With a view to establish that the aforesaid resolution was intended to defame the petitioner, when read, the petitioner was required to establish that after having gone through the aforesaid resolution, witnesses including Gurbanchn Lal held out to him (petitioner), that he had fallen in the estimation of the witness after having gone through Exh.CW1/B. Admittedly, he has not said any thing in that behalf and rightly so. Reason being that he was neither concerned with the said resolution, nor it was addressed to him by respondents No. 1 to 5. In addition to this, the statement of petitioner himself alone is a self serving statement, besides being general in nature. 10. Great emphasis was laid by Mr. "Sharma on the fact that it was because of this resolution that claim of the petitioner was turned down by the District Collector, Una. If this was the situation on record, probably, petitioner would have got proved the same from none else, but from CW-1 Des Raj or in any case by producing the concerned District Collector who had passed the order in the lamberdari file supra. There is no murmur to that effect in the statement of CW-1 and admittedly Collector has not been examined. 11. No doubt while considering the case to summon or not to summon after having recorded preliminary evidence, trial court is not expected to minutely go into the question of legality and trustworthiness of the same as at the stage after conclusion of the trial. But at the same time process is not to be issued in a mechanical manner. Minimum requirement to be ensured before issuing process to summon the accused like respondents No. 1 to 51 as in the present case, is that the ingredients of the offences alleged for which notice is being issued should at least be met with. On the basis of preliminary evidence to which reference was made by the learned counsel at the time of hearing, in my considered view it does not make out a case for summoning of respondents No. 1 to 5. 12. To be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, another plea that was urged needs to be noted. On the basis of preliminary evidence to which reference was made by the learned counsel at the time of hearing, in my considered view it does not make out a case for summoning of respondents No. 1 to 5. 12. To be fair to the learned counsel for the petitioner, another plea that was urged needs to be noted. It is that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the reason given by the learned Sessions Judge below. After having gone through the same, I find no legal ground to uphold this contention and alternatively for the reasons set out hereinabove order allowing of revision and setting aside the order of summoning passed by the trial court needs to be upheld. 13. No other point is urged. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition, which is, dismissed at admission state -