ORDER Naik, J. I have heard Sri. Shivamurthy, Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. C.R. Jadhav, learned S.P.P., appearing for the respondent-State and perused the material on record. 2. The original complainant has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 27.06.2005 passed in Crime No.90/2001 of Arsikere Town Police where under, ‘B’ report submitted by the police has been accepted. It is just and necessary to note that consequent upon filing of ‘B’ report the petitioner herein filed a protest petition on 28.04.2003 and in support of his protest petition, apart from examining himself, he examined seven (7) other witnesses. However, at the stage of addressing arguments, Counsel for petitioner was not present before the Court below, as such, the trial Court accepted ‘B’ report, which came to be challenged on an earlier occasion before this Court in Crl.R.P. 792/2003. This Court, by the order dated 29.08.2003 set aside the order passed by the trial Court accepting ‘B’ report dated 19.06.2003, with a direction to the trial Court to afford an opportunity to petitioner and proceed with the matter further and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Then thereafter, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity and the matter was heard on merits and by the impugned order dated 27.06.2005, the JMFC., Arasikere again accepted’ B’ report. As such, the present revision petition is filed. 3. It is just and necessary to note that on filing of ‘B’ report, the original complainant will have to be notified with regard to filing of ‘B’ report, giving sufficient opportunity to appear before the Court and have his say in the matter. If the original complainant does not make out any justifiable ground for accepting ‘B’ report and if he does not appear before the Court within the time prescribed for his appearance, the Court would be justified in accepting’ B’ report, looking to the contents of the same. But however, if the original complainant appears before the Court and files his protest petition to ‘B’ report and opts to examine himself and other witnesses in support of his case, the legal recourse that is left to the Magistrate is to treat such protest petition as original complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The ‘B’ report, along with the material produced therein loses importance and such material would be of no value. Then thereafter, the Court will have to look into the averments made in the protest petition and the contents of the sworn statements and arrive at a conclusion as to whether the same makes out a prima facie case for issuance of process to the accused. The question of acceptance or rejection of’ B’ report at that stage would arise only in the event the complainant does not make out a prima facie case for issue of process. However, the Court will have to ascertain whether the material produced in the form of protest petition and the sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses if any examined make out a prima facie case to issue process or if the material so produced is deficient, it may terminate the proceedings as provided under Section 203 of Cr.P.C., and if there is prima facie case made out, process shall be issued as provided under Section 204 Cr.PC. 4. As the protest petition is to be treated as complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., all ingredients are required to be mentioned in the complaint and the person who presents the protest petition shall be examined on oath and the witnesses present if any shall also be examined on oath and on such examination, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also the Magistrate as provided under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Further, the Magistrate, who takes cognizance of complaint when examines upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, in that process, there should be no assistance to the complainant or his witnesses from any third source and it is the Magistrate alone who shall examine the complainant and his witnesses without the assistance of either prosecutor or any Counsel. Here, in the instant case, on careful scrutiny of the material on record I find that sworn statements are recorded with the assistance of an Advocate appearing for the complainant, which is not permissible in law. As such, this Court is of the view that the trial Court fell in error in adopting such procedure and therefore, the trial Court will have to proceed with the matter from the stage of filing of protest petition. As such, this Court is of the view that the trial Court fell in error in adopting such procedure and therefore, the trial Court will have to proceed with the matter from the stage of filing of protest petition. If the Magistrate finds prima facie case in the protest petition at that stage, if there is sufficient prima facie material to take cognizance, he shall resort to further process as provided under Chapter-XV of Cr.P.C. Further, on perusal of the records it is seen that the Magistrate has made reference to the contents of the statements recorded during the course of investigation. Once a protest petition is filed, the Magistrate would not have looked into either the complaint or the statements made during the course of investigation by investigating officer. On filing of protest petition, the contents of the protest petition and the sworn statement made before the Magistrate by the complainant and his witnesses would alone form integral part of the complaint and the Magistrate will have to proceed as provided under Chapter-XV of the Cr.P.C. As the Magistrate has failed to follow the process narrated above impugned order passed by the Magistrate is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following order is made. Criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.06.2005 passed by the Munsiff and JMFC Court, Arsikere in Crime No.90/2001 of Arasikere Town Police is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case from the stage of filing of protest petition and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.