K. N. OJHA, J. Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 21-5-2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/iv Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghazipur, in Criminal Case No. 258 of 2003, Suddhu v. Vijay Yadav and others by which after recording statement of the complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. the revisionists Vijay Yadav, Chhangur Yadav, Surendra Yadav and Angad Yadav have been summoned to face trial under Sections 323/34, 325, 504, 506 I. P. C. and the complainant opposite party No. 2 has been directed to take steps for issuing summons to accused revisionists within a week. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and have gone through the record. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that on the basis of a Photostat copy of the injury report the accused have been summoned to face trial, It is also submitted that the accused have not yet appeared in the Court nor any application has been moved by them before the Judicial Magistrate for bail and a prayer has been made in this revision for making a direction to the Judicial Magistrate to release the revisionists on bail on the date when they move application for bail. 4. It is also submitted that the revisionists had earlier filed an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , which was converted into Criminal Revision under order of this Court, therefore, delay has taken place. Thus sufficient explanation has been given for condonation of delay. A perusal of record shows that Criminal Misc. Application No. 10317 of 2003, Vijay Yadav and others v. State of U. P. and another was filed before this Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , which was converted into Criminal Revision on 11. 12. 2003, therefore, the explanation furnished for condonation of delay in filing this revision is sufficient and the delay in filing this revision is condoned. 5. In this case statement of complainant Suddhu Yadav was recorded under Section 200 Cr. P. C. and statement of witnesses Mahatam and Uma Shanker were recorded under Section 202 Cr. P. C. They have made statement that the revisionists in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries with lathis, legs and fists to Suddhu. On his alarm the witnesses reached the spot and saw the occurrence. P. C. and statement of witnesses Mahatam and Uma Shanker were recorded under Section 202 Cr. P. C. They have made statement that the revisionists in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries with lathis, legs and fists to Suddhu. On his alarm the witnesses reached the spot and saw the occurrence. After extending insulting language and threatening the accused revisionist, left the place. Even though it is said that a copy of injury report was filed by the complainant in the complaint case but there is statement of victim and is eyewitnesses. In these circumstances if the revisionists have been summoned to face the trial by issuing summons, no illegality has been committed by passing the impugned order. 6. It has been held in Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2000 (1) JIC 399 (All) (FB) : 2000 (40) ACC 342, Ranjeet Singh v. State of U. P. in which a large number of cases decided by Honble the Apex Court and High Courts were dealt with in detail that "the scope of inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. is extremely limited-limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint. . . . . . . . . . . It is well settled that in proceedings under Section 202 the accused has got absolutely no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard on the question whether process should be issued against him or not. The conclusion drawn in 1993 (30) ACC 665, Kailash Chaudhary v. State of U. P. is not backed up by any provisions in the Cr. P. C. and it amounts to reversing the procedure for trial which is not permissible under the Cr. P. C. challenging the process of issuing summons. To challenge the process is requiring the arms of the clock to move anti-clockwise which does not happen or at least should not happen. A parallel trial should not commence before the actual trial begins. " 7. The same law has been laid down by Honble the Apex Court in 1976 SCC (Criminal) 507, Smt. Nagawwa v. V. S. Konjalgi & others. 8. Thus at this stage it is not to be ascertained as to whether the evidence adduced is sufficient for conviction or not. " 7. The same law has been laid down by Honble the Apex Court in 1976 SCC (Criminal) 507, Smt. Nagawwa v. V. S. Konjalgi & others. 8. Thus at this stage it is not to be ascertained as to whether the evidence adduced is sufficient for conviction or not. Only prima-facie consideration is to be made for which the Magistrate found that there was sufficient evidence for summoning the accused - revisionists. 9. When an accused is summoned the case has to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Cr. P. C. law in respect of which has been provided in the Code itself. It is discretion of the Magistrate to see as to whether it is a fit case in which the accused be enlarged on bail or their prayer for bail be rejected. The Magistrate has to ascertain as to whether the order can be passed on the same day or he has to consider some papers, therefore, no direction can be issued to the Magistrate that he must grant bail or dispose of the bail application on the same day when the accused appear in the Court. 10. There is no jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 21-5- 2003. 11. The revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Revision dismissed. .