THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1339 of 2008 Date: 28.01.2010 Between Smt. Padmavathi and another. Petitioners/Complainants And The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1339 of 2008 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 27.08.2008 passed in C.F. No. 2539 of 2008 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, Anantapur District, in dismissing the complaint. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment in case between Pulagam Venkatareddi v. State of A.P.[1], submitted that at the stage of recording the sworn statements, the learned Magistrate is required to examine whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and he is not expected to make a detailed enquiry and analyse the evidence at that stage. The case of the petitioners is that they entered into an agreement of sale to purchase an extent of Ac.2-01 cents in Survey No.301/B2, Ac.0-88 cents in Survey No.301/B1 and Ac.0-52 cents in Survey No.302/B1, totally admeasuring Ac.3-41 cents at the rate of Rs.4,75,000/- per acre from accused Nos.1 to 5 and they have paid an advance of Rs.4,00,000/- on 25.10.2007 and promised to pay the remaining amount within three months. After entering into the agreement of sale, the petitioners learnt that out of Ac.3-41 cents of land an extent of Ac.1-40 cents belonged to railway department. Then, when they requested the accused to return the amount, the accused, instead of paying the amount, represented that the petitioners may execute promissory notes and that if any objection is raised by the railway authorities, they would return the excess amount of Rs.1,65,000/- taken from the petitioners. Believing the version of the accused, the petitioners are alleged to have executed promissory notes and accordingly sale deeds were executed and registered on 26.03.2008, vide document No.1983 of 2008. However, subsequently, the railway authorities have also taken possession of Ac.1-40 cents of land. It is alleged that on 25.08.2008 at about 6.00 PM when the petitioners approached the accused persons to return the excess amount paid by them and also the promissory notes, the accused scolded the petitioners and threatened to see their end. After filing the complaint, the sworn statements of Smt. Padmavathi, w/o Purushotham, Smt. Leela, w/o K. Srinivasa Rao and K. Venkataramana, s/o Rangappa were recorded. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, observing that the buyer has to verify the title of the vendor and that the petitioners had not verified the title of their vendors and that the husbands of the petitioners were not cited as witnesses and that the dispute appears to be of a civil nature, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision case. It has to be seen that the complainants ought to have presented a typed complaint. Admittedly, they have no legal assistance. It is true that the names of the husbands of the petitioners are not shown as witnesses. At the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C the Magistrate should see whether the contents of complaint and sworn statements show a prima facie case or not. If the material discloses a prima facie case, he should issue process to the accused. He cannot make a thorough enquiry and appreciate the evidence as normally done at the time of final judgment. It has to be seen that out of Ac.3-41 cents only Ac.1-40 cents was found to be Railway land. It appears that the petitioners may not be knowing that out of Ac.3-41 cents of land a part of it is railway land. However, it appears that the accused had knowledge about the same. Therefore, what is required to be seen is whether at the very inception the accused had criminal intention to cheat or not and whether the petitioners were cheated or not. There is another problem in this case is that the petitioners have no legal assistance. When the petitioners/complainants are not assisted by any Advocate, the learned Magistrate ought to have directed them to secure the legal assistance or he ought to have directed them to approach the concerned legal services authority for legal aid. More over, the last para of the complaint also shows that the only request made by the petitioners was to refer the matter to the police. The matter was not referred to the police. Of course it is the discretion of the Magistrate either to refer the matter to police or to enquire himself. In view of the same, the criminal revision case is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, Ananthapur District, with a direction to consider the material afresh and if necessary record further statements of the witnesses and then shall proceed in accordance with law. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 28.01.2010 Nsr [1] 2002 (2) ALT (Crl.) 183 (A.P)