LATOOR SINGH Vs. KIRAN PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 28-3-84 passed by Special Judge/additional Ses sions Judge, Bulandshahr allowing the ap peal quashing the summoning order in complaint case.

(2.) DESPITE the list being revised, none appeared for the revisionist. After death of Sri B. P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the revisionist a notice was sent to the revisionist to engage another Counsel but he failed to avail this opportunity (sic)he appeared for the revisionist.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the op posite party supported the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In my opinion, the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge committed illegality in holding that the complaint version was false. It was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. At the stage of summoning the Magistrate has only to satisfy from the material before him if there is ground for proceeding neither the Magistrate nor the revisional Court has power to meticulous ly analyse the evidence and to draw con clusion whether the version is false or cor rect. In my opinion the presence of the witnesses could not be disbelieved. Merely on the ground that the fire could not be controlled.