JUDGMENT 1. The circumstances in which this rule was issued are as follows:-- A complaint was made before a Deputy Magistrate, who, we understand, is authorised to receive complaints. The Deputy Magistrate, after recording the complainant's statement upon the petition of complaint, made what appears on the face of it rather a singular order, as, follows:--"To produce evidence on 30-1-02, notice to the accused on payment of costs." If this order was intended to be made under the provisions of sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was irregular, in that no reasons were recorded and that the presence of the accused was required. Then, on the 30th, the Deputy Magistrate proceeds first to record the following order: "To my file for inquiry and report." Why he should have made such an order when the case was already on his file is not apparent. He then examines some witnesses, and records an order in the course of which he states that he does not believe the story told by the complainant, and that he thinks that the case should be dismissed under sec. 203, C.Cr.P., but the order instead of dismissing the complaint terminates with the words, "submitted to Magistrate. It is not stated, and we do not understand, under what provision of law this was done. 2. On the 5th February the District Magistrate recorded the order in respect of which the present rule has been granted. He states that he thinks that the case should be regularly tried; he directs the issue of summons to the accused persons under sec. 417, I.P.C., and he then makes the case over for disposal to a Deputy Magistrate, other than the Deputy Magistrate before whom the complaint was originally made. 3. We cannot understand how the case was sent before the District Magistrate or what authority he had to direct the issue of process, and the explanation which he has submitted does not throw any light upon the matter. It seems to us that if the Deputy Magistrate had any power to receive the complaint at all, he had power to deal with it finally and it was his duty to do so. It seems to us that if the Deputy Magistrate had any power to receive the complaint at all, he had power to deal with it finally and it was his duty to do so. It was for him to dispose of it, either by grant of process or by dismissing the complaint, as he thought fit in his discretion, and the District Magistrate would have no power to pass any order for the issue of process upon the accused unless he first removed the case to his own file. 4. We accordingly make the rule absolute and set aside the order of the District Magistrate, made on the 5th February 1902, the case will be remitted to the Deputy Magistrate by whom the complaint was received, to be dealt with by him according to law. The irregularities which we have noticed seem to indicate the existence in the District of Jessore of an erroneous system of procedure, which, if it prevails, should at once be abandoned for that prescribed by the law.