Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application by the complainant to revise the order of the District Magistrate of the Nilgiris dismissing his complaint of robbery. The contention of the complainant is that he was the owner of a car and he was in possession of it for over two years and that the counter-petitioner forcibly took the car from his possession and thereby committed robbery. The learned District Magistrate after examining the complainant on oath sent for some records from the police and for some records from a private individual, perused them and came to the conclusion that the counter-petitioner acted under a bona fide claim of right and, therefore, no offence was committed by him. It does not appear from the records, nor is it suggested by Mr. Smith who appears for the counter-petitioner, that the complainant was given an opportunity to meet the evidence that was available before the Magistrate to disprove the statements made in the complaint. It is open to a Magistrate to hold a preliminary enquiry under Section 202, Criminal P.C. but in holding such enquiry if evidence which is opposed to the complainants allegations is brought before him he should give opportunity to t