Govinda Menon, J.
1. When this revision petition came on for hearing on a previous occasion, I called for a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate whether the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in this Court were true or not. The report which has been received from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to some extent supports the allegations contained in the affidavit.
2. The petitioners were the accused before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devakottah, and they were proceeded against under various section of the Indian Penal Code for having cut open the bund of a tank and thereby caused loss to the crops of the complainant. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after Bending the complaint to the police for enquiry and considering the police report, dismissed the complaint under' Section 203, Criminal P. C. The complainant took the matter in revision and the learned Sessions Judge following a decision Maccarthy v. Shannon : AIR1928Mad135 to the effect that before a complaint was rejected under Section 203, Criminal P. 0., the complainant should have been given an opportunity to meet the reasons given by the police in their report under Section 2O2, Criminal P. C, for not proceeding with the complaint, set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and directed the complaint to be disposed of according to law. He was of opinion that there was a duty cast upon the Court of enquiry to give an opportunity to the complainant to explain or meet the evidence recorded by the police during the investigation and that in this .case such duty had not been discharged.
3. It is not obligatory upon the Magistrate before whom the complaint is made or to whom it has been transferred, to give an opportunity to the complainant to show that the report of the police enquiry is wrong. Section 203 does not impose such a duty. All that the Magistrate has to do is to consider the statement on oath, if any, of the complainant as well as the result of the investigation or enquiry under Section 202, Criminal P. C., before he dismisses the complaint. Nowhere is it stated that a Magistrate who has referred a complaint for enquiry should, after receipt of the police report, give an opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence, to show that the repot t of the police is wrong or incorrect. If the view of the learned Sessions Judge is to be accepted, then it make3 the provisions of Section 203, Criminal P. C. much wider than it is expressly stated.
4. In this case the Magistrate says that he went to the tank bund with a view to have some idea of the supply position in the tank and the condition of the crops in connection with proceedings that were pending before him under Section 145, Criminal P. C. He reports that his inspection of the tank did not reveal damage to the .crops as stated in the complaint. Though the Magistrate did not specifically give an opportunity to the complainant to prove that the police report was wrong-which he is not bound to do he told the complainant that the police report was against him and that the Magistrate's inspection of the tank did not reveal damage to the crops. The complainant had no satisfactory answer to give and the report also does not state that he did request the Court to give him an opportunity then and there to explain the findings contained in the police report. In view of the fact that the occurrence took place as long ago as 12th December 194G and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate discharged the accused Under Section 203, Criminal P. C, I do not think it necessary to re-agitate the whole matter afresh. I therefore set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and confirm the order of discharge passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.