List has been revised. None appears for the revisionists to press the revision.

2. Perused material on record and heard learned A. G. A.

3. It appears from the record that revisionists were summoned to stand trial under Sections 147,148, 427 and 435 I. P. C. The complainant felt aggrieved and filed a revision claiming that offence under Sec tion 436 I. P. C. was also made out. The revisional Court allowed the revision and directed the learned Magistrate to summon the accused persons under Section 436 I. P. C. in addition to the offences under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 435 I. P. C. In the present revision order passed by the IV Addl. Ses sions Judge, Mirzapur, allowing the revision of the complainant is challenged on the ground that the offence under Section 436 I. P. C. was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and in view of the provisions con tained in the proviso to Section 202 (2) Cr. P. C. , the summoning order could not be passed without examining all the witnesses.

4. Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 202 Cr. PC. reads as follows:-

"provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusive ly by the Court of S