Anna Chandy, J.
1. The revision is against the order passed by the District Magistrate, Palghat, refusing to implead the petitioners as complainants in a proceeding under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. The facts which gave rise to the proceedings are as follows : The people of Kannambra including the appellants complained by a mass petition against the obstruction to a public cart track through a plot of land which was being converted into a rubber estate. The alleged obstruction was caused by the purchasers of the land and their employees. After investigation, the Executive First Class Magistrate, Palghat, passed a conditional order under Section 133 Cri. P. C. against the managing partner and two employees of the astate. They appeared and denied the public right.
The case stood posted for the necessary enquiry under Section 139A Criminal Procedure Code. It is at that stage that the impleading petition was filed. That application was disallowed by the learned Magistrate for the reason that the enquiry envisaged in Section 139A is in the nature of an ex parte summary enquiry with a view to finding out whether there is prima facie evidence in support of the denial of the existence of a public right, and not an elaborate one to affirmatively establish the existence of the right and as such the petitioners had no right to come in at that stage. Reliance was placed on the case of Darsan Ram v. The State, reported in AIR 1959 Put 81 in support of this position.
3. It was argued on behalf of the revision petitioners that the decision relied upon by the learned Magistrate has only laid down mat it, is not for the Magistrate who is conducting an enquiry under Section 139A to take the evidence of both sides and then to judge if the party against whom the order has been made has succeeded in establishing the non-existence of the public right, and that the decision is 110 authority for the position that the persons at whose instance the proceedings were started have no locus standi to watch the proceedings and help the court to find whether there is reliable evidence in support of the denial of the existence of the right.
4. It is clear that the scope of an enquiry under Section 139A is limited. It is solely for the purpose of finding out whether there is any necessity for a detailed enquiry under Section 137 and as such there is no scope for weighing the evidence to find if the alleged right exists or does not exist, The evidence has only to be taken as it stands to see whether on the face of it the Magistrate can conclude that the evidence is false and therefore unreliable. Therefore the impleadement of the petitioners at this stage will only result in protracting and complicating the summary enquiry.
5. The fact of the impleadment of the petitioners as respondents in the transfer petition made before the High Court, will not create a right in them to get themselves impleaded at this stage in the Magistrate's Court. Their impleadment in the High Court was not objected to by the respondents who oppose their coming in at this stage.
6. The Criminal Revision Petition is hence dismissed.