ORDER The complainant of complaint case no. 1223 of 2002 has preferred this application for quashing of the order dated 29.8.2005 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 149 of 2003 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea, whereby he has dismissed the revision filed against the order dated 29.4.2003 passed in the said complaint case no. 1223 of 2002 by Sri R. Krishna, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea by which he has dismissed the complaint. 2. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate had based his order of dismissal primarily on two grounds, namely, that Master Zakiruddin, an important witness, had not both examined and that there was contradiction in the evidence of complainant's witness no.1, Akhtar Hussain. In this context, learned counsel sought to submit that it would be apparent from perusal of the deposition of C.W.1 that he had fully supported the complainant's case and there was no occasion for the Magistrate to enter into the merits of the case when he was only required to see whether a prima facie case had been made out against the accused to proceed further. 3. The grievance against the order of the revisional court is that the learned Sessions Court had passed the order mechanically and in a most casual manner. 4. I have had the occasion to peruse the order of the learned Magistrate dated 29.4.2003 as also the order of the revisional court. 5. So far as the complainant's case is concerned, he had loaned out Rs. 10,000/ - to Master Zakiruddin of Village-Maitre and on 9.10.2002 the complainant had gone to his native Village-Kochaili to look over his landed property and also to take return of the money loaned out. It is alleged that while the complainant was returning on his Motorcycle to the town at around 5.30 P.M. after supervising his lands and receiving Rs. 10,000/- from Master Zakiruddin and as he reached near Kalibari Chowk, his Motorcycle was stopped and he was surrounded by the accused persons and accused Ajmal ordered the accused persons to snatch Rs.10,000/- from his custody and also snatch his Motorcycle. It is further alleged that even as the other accused threatened him of causing grievous hurt, Ajmal took out Rs. It is further alleged that even as the other accused threatened him of causing grievous hurt, Ajmal took out Rs. 10,000/- from hand bag and as he attempted to resist the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant by assaulting him with fists and legs. The complainant claimed to have identified the accused who were also identified by the witnesses who had arrived at the scene but they could not intervene out of fear. It is also alleged that while Zakiruddin was handing over the money to the complainant, accused Ajmal was present at the spot and had seen Zakiruddin handing over the money to the complainant. 6. From paragraph 9 of the complaint petition, it is apparent that the complainant had narrated the incident/occurrence to the witnesses. Therefore, it would be apparent that the single witness Akhtar examined on behalf of the complainant was apparently a hearsay witness: In his deposition before the court, Akhtar, C.W.1, stated that Ajmal had taken away a black coloured bag from the complainant which contained Rs. 10,000/-. 7. If the story of the complaint petition is to be believed then it was Master Zakiruddin who had handed over Rs. 10,000/to the complainant in presence of Ajmal only. In that event, how could C.W.1, Akhtar Hussain, know that the bag contained Rs.10,000/- unless he was told of the same by someone. The learned Magistrate observed that the two other witnesses named in the complaint petition had not both examined and that the most important witness Master Zakiruddin had also not been examined which casts a question mark on the entire prosecution case. 8. The revisional court Upholding the order of the learned Magistrate took into the account all matters in issue and rightly dismissed the revision. 9. I find no apparent illegality or impropriety or irregularity in the impugned orders. From perusal of the two orders impugned, it does not appear that there is any need of interference with the aforesaid orders. 10. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed.