V.N.Varma, J. - (1.)THIS revision is directed against an order dated 9-1-1976 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh setting aside the order of the Magistrate discharging the accused of the case-the applicants before me-in a case u/Section 218/109 IPC started at the instance of O. P. No. 1 (Ganpat Sahai).
(2.)O. P. No. 1 is the own brother of applicants Sripat Sahai and Ramesh Chandra, Jalpa Prasad was their father. Jalpa Prasad owned some agricultural plots of land in village Chak Muzaffar, Pargana Mahul, Tehsil Phulpur, Distt. Azamgarh. He gifted those plots of land in favour of O. P. No. 1 in October, 1957. O. P. No. 1 then applied for mutation of his name over those plots and his name was mutated in the revenue records. Jalpa Prasad died in June, 1966. In January, 1969 applicants Sripat Sahai and Ramesh Chandra moved an application in the court concerned for setting aside the order mutating the name of O. P. No. 1 over the disputed plots. Their application was allowed on 7-7-1969 and the ex-parte mutation order passed in favour of O. P. No. 1 was set aside. Aggrieved with this order O. P. No. 1 went up in appeal to the court of Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 24-11- 1969 allowed his appeal and set aside the order dated 7-7-1969. Applicant Sripat Sahai and Ramesh Chandra then took up the matter to the Board of Revenue by way of revision and challenged the order of the Commissioner. The Board of Revenue admitted their revision and stayed the operation of the order passed by the Commissioner. While the proceedings in regard to mutation were pending, applicants Sripat Sahai and Ramesh Chandra filed a declaratory suit against O. P. No. 1 u/Section 229-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act but that suit stood abated because the village in which the disputed plots were situate came under consolidation operations. Thereafter, these two persons filed another suit against O. P. No. 1 for partition of the disputed plots. They, however, withdrew that suit after some time. It is said that while all these cases were going on applicants Sripat Sahai and Ramesh Chandra colluded with applicants Badri Singh Lekhpal and Awadh Narain Lal Supervisor Qanoongo and got fictitious entries regarding the disputed plots made in their favour in the Khatauni of 1378 fasli. This was to the detriment of O. P. No. 1 and, therefore, O. P. No. 1 filed a complaint against all the four persons-Sripat Sahai, Ramesh Chandra, Badri Singh and Awadh Narain Lal u/Section 218/109 IPC. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of O. P. No. 1 and his witness Vishwanath u/Section 200 CrPC. After going through their evidence and the documents present on the record of the case he felt that no case for conviction against the applicants was made out and he, therefore, discharged them. O. P. No. 1 felt aggrieved with this order of discharge and went up in revision. The revisional court allowed the revision, set aside the order of discharge and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case in accordance with law after framing proper charges. The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at sufficient length and after doing so I do not think that this revision has any merit behind it. U/section 203 CrPC a Magistrate has been given power to dismiss a case instituted on a complaint if he feels that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with it. In the instant case, the Magistrate has not mentioned in his order that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding with the case and, therefore, he was dismissing the complaint. What the learned Magistrate has mentioned in his order is that on the evidence present on record no case for conviction is made out and, therefore, the accused deserve to be discharged. At the stage of section 203 CrPC it is not open to the Magistrate to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or the trial is sure to end in his conviction. At the initial stage of the trial, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence producedby the complainant are not to be meticulously judged. It is not necessary for the Magistrate at that stage to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter u/Section 203 CrPC. If there is even a strong suspicion against the accused which leads the Magistrate to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to him to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the instant case, the allegation made in the complaint was that the applicants had colluded with each other and it was in pursuance of that collusion that the Lekhpal and the Supervisor Qanoongo (Applicants nos. 2 and 4) made false and fictitious entries in favour of Sripat Sahai and Ramesh Chandra (Applicants nos. 1 and 2) in the Khatauni 1378 fasli. O. P. No. 1 mentioned this very thing in his statement also. He also mentioned about his possession over the disputed plots. His witness Vishwanath also supported him in this regard. At the moment there is nothing to show that the statements given by the complainant and his witness Vishwanath are in any way false. In the Khatauni 1374-76 Fasli O. P. No. J was solely recorded as Bhumidhar over the disputed plots. It was in the Khatauni of 1377-1379 Fasli that the names of applicants nos. 1 and 2 were also introduced along with the name of O. P. No. 1. The allegation is that the names of applicants nos. 1 and 2 were falsely and fictitiously introduced by applicants nos. 2 and 4 with the intention of causing loss to O. P. No. 1. Again, there is nothing to show at the moment that this allegation is in any way wrong. It is only at the final stage that the court can be in a position to say whether the allegations made by the complainant should be accepted or not. Therefore, as the facts of the case stood, it was not proper on the part of the learned Magistrate to have discharged the applicants u/Section 203 CrPC. The lower revisional court, therefore, rightly set aside the order passed by the Magistrate.

In the result, I find no force in this revision and dismiss it accordingly. Revision dismissed.