The scope of inquiry under Sec.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to ascertaining if a prima facie case has been made out, and the inquiry officer cannot convert the inquiry into a full-dress trial.

R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. This case has a chequered history. On the 14th of October, 1957, the petitioned Markandey Rai, as a member of the Managing Committee of the Bhumihar Brahmin High English School, Buxar, filed a petition of complaint, as being authorised by the President of the said Managing Committee, before the District Magistrate of Shahabad against the two opposite parties, namely, Sheokumar Thakur, opposite party No. 1, who was the Headmaster of that school, and Rajaram Arya, opposite party No. 2, who was a nominated member of the Managing Committee of that school, for criminal breach of trust as well as for forgery.

According to the prosecution, the Headmaster was a man of influence at Buxar, and so the petition of complaint, instead of being filed before the Subdivisional Magistrate, Buxar, was filed before the District Magistrate of Shahabad. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on the 1st of November, 1957, and as, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, the complaint required proper investigation, he directed the Superintendent of Police, Shahabad, to have the complaint investigated by the police. The complainant at once filed a petition objecting to the investigation being made by the police, but the learned District Magistrate rejected that petition.

On the 10th of December, 1957, however, the complainant again filed a petition before the District Magistrate for withdrawing the investigation from the police, but the District Magistrate again rejected the same. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was directed by the Superintendent of Police to make the investigation, did not do any-thing in the matter, and reported that, as the complaint disclosed cognizable offence, the complainant should be directed to lodge a first information report in the police station, and then alone the case could he investigated by the police.

The Superintendent of Police endorsed the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and it was put up before the District Magistrate on the 11th of February, 1958, who directed the Superintendent of Police to take action, as suggested by him, for the institution of a case for investigation by the police. Against the above order, the complainant moved the Sessions Judge of Shahabad, who, on the 20th of March 1958, directed further inquiry to be made by the District Magistrate himself.

The District Magistrate, however, refused to follow the direction of the Sessions Judge, and referred back the matter again to the Superintendent of Police to take action as suggested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as stated above. The complainant again moved the Sessions Judge of Shahabad, but his application was summarily dismissed by him on the 18th of April, 1958. Against the above order of the Sessions Judge, an application was filed in this Court, which was numbered as Criminal Miscellaneous No. 129 of 1958, and this Court directed further inquiry to be made by the Additional District Magistrate of Shahabad, and also started a proceeding for contempt of Court against the District Magistrate for disobeying the orders of the Sessions Judge.

The contempt proceeding, however, was dropped on submission of an unqualified apology by the District Magistrate. The case was, however, transferred by the District Magistrate on the 14th of August, 1958 to the Additional District Magistrate for further inquiry into the complaint. The Additional District Magistrate inquired into the matter, and, during the inquiry stage, examined witnesses produced on behalf of the complainant, who were also cross-examined by putting questions as suggested by the defence lawyer. He also examined one witness as a Court witness. Several documents were marked as exhibits on behalf of the complainant as well as on behalf of the defence.

According to the case of the complainant, the documents produced on behalf of the defence were produced in the absence of the complainant, and he had no opportunity to meet