1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate toshow cause why an order passed under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code,should not be set aside on the ground that the order was made withoutjurisdiction.

2. It appears that the petitioner lodged information withthe Police. The Police reported the case to be false. The case then came beforethe Sub-Divisional Magistrate who passed the following order: "Thecomplainant to prove his case on the 8th October 1913." The petitionerapparently had made no complaint to the Magistrate.

3. We have allowed the learned Pleader for the other side toappear. But he has been entirely unable to show us any provision of law underwhich this order was passed. The proceedings do not seem to us to come withinany of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. They do not come withinsection 202 as there was no complaint nor do they come under section 159 asthey were taken on a final report and not on a first information report. Wethink, therefore, that the Rule must be made absolute on the ground on which itwas issued.

4. We are informed, however, that the Police officer withwhom the information was lodged asked for the prosecution of the petitioner.We, of course, do not desire to limit his power to prefer any complaint undersection 195, Criminal Procedure Code, which he may be advised to make.

.

Sarba Mahton vs.Emperor (05.03.1913 - CALHC)