A Magistrate cannot issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. without applying his mind to the material on record and without finding a prima facie case against the accused. The court has revisional powers to interfere with the proceedings and quash the same where issue of process has been ordered on insufficient materials.

1. S.B. Criminal Revision No. 273/79, S.B. Criminal Revision No. 88,'79 and S.B. Criminal Revision No. 243/79 filed by Rantnarain petitioner arise out of one and the same incident which was alleged to have taken place at Churu Police Station Kotwali during the night between 8th and 9th February, 1975 and in which Vimalkumar Balmukand and Sheopujan complainants were alleged to have been wrongfully confined, abused and beaten with requisite intention or knowledge to kill and coerce to make confession by other co-accused at the instance of the petitioner. Hence these revision petitions are decided together by this one judgment as common questions of law and facts do arise in them.

2. The incident that led to the prosecution of the petitioner upon complaints by Vimal Kumar, Balmukand and Sheopujan in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Churu, may be briefly stated as follows:-

3. On 8-2-75 the then Chief Minister Shri Harideo Joshi visited Churu on official tour. Upon his arrival there was tension which led to strike in the market. The Officer incharge of Administration felt annoyed on that score and out of a revengeful spirit arrested some persons including the three complaints, namely, Vimal Kumar, Balmukand and Sheopujan in the night between 8th 9th February, 1975. After their arrest the co-accused, mentioned in each complaint, abused and beat the complainants with intent to kill them and coerced them to make false confessions at the instance of the petitioner and one Satyaprakash the then Deputy Superintendent of Police Churu. The complainant however, refused to make any confession. Hence they were again beaten and e% ritually challaned in the court of Judicial Magistrate Churu under sections 307, 147, 149 353, 332, 427, 341 and 336 I.P.C. As a result of the beating administered to the three complainants by the co-accused at the instance of Ramnarain petitioner and Satyaprakash Dy. S P. The three petitioners sustained some injuries on their bodies which were noticed on their person upon medical examination by Drs. P.P. Gupta, S.N.Nabula and K.S. Mehta on 13-2-75. The complainants namely Vimalkumar, Balmukand and Sheopujan therefore filed three separate complaints (one by each) against the petitioner and other co-accused in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Churu under sections 307, 330, 504, 342 read with S. 34 and S 109 I.P.C.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate examined each complainant on oath corded his statement and the statements of his witnesses and upon considering those statements including that of the complainants, came to a conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner and other co-accused under sections 330, 323, 342, and 504 read with section 34 I.P.C. Accordingly he issued process in each complaint against the petitioner and the co-accused to (procure their a tendance in his Court. As against this order of issuing of process against the petitioner in each complaint, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

5. I have carefully perused the record of each revision petition and heard Mr. M.M. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kewal Chand Samdaria learned counsel for Sheopujan and the Public Prosecutor in S.B. riminal Revision Petition No. 88/79. In S.B. Criminal revision petition No. 43/79 Balmukand non-petitioner No. 1 and in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 273/79 Shri Vimal Kumar non-petitioner No. 1 have not put in their appear ncc despite due service of notice on them. Hence in these two revision petitions heard Mr. M.M. Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public prosecutor for the State.

6. Mr. Kewal Chand Samdaria learned counsel for Sheopujan non-petitioner No. 1 in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 88/79 raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition filed by the petitioner is barred by time cause it has been filed in this Court beyond 90 days since the date of order the Judicial Magistrate i.e. 1-9-78 and so it shoul