JUDGMENT Harington, J. - In this case one Sadhu Lall applied for sanction under sec. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute certain persons for giving false evidence in a criminal case. The Assistant Magistrate before whom the application came granted it. The Magistrate who granted it exercised second class powers. Two of the persons against whom the sanction was granted applied for the revocation of that sanction. Their application was made to the Joint Magistrate and he revoked the sanction given by the Assistant Magistrate. A rule was granted calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order revoking the sanction should not be set aside on the ground that the Joint Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make it. 2. In sec. 195, cl. (7), it is provided that for the purposes of the section every Court shall be deemed to be subordinate only to the Court to which appeals from the former Court ordinarily lie. In the present case the Court of the Joint Magistrate was not that to which appeals ordinarily lay, but the Court to which appeals ordinarily lay was that of the District Magistrate. It is true that under sec. 407, cl. (2), the District Magistrate might direct that an appeal under that section, or any class of appeals should be heard by any Magistrate of the first class subordinate to him and empowered by the Local Government to hear such appeals. Under this section he had authorised the Joint Magistrate to hear appeals, but those appeals can only be heard by the Joint Magistrate under the special power which was conferred on him by the District Magistrate under sec. 407, cl. (2), and the existence of that power does not constitute the Joint Magistrate the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie under sec. 195, cl. (7). 3. For these reasons we think that the Joint Magistrate took a mistaken view of his powers in respect of the sanction under sec. 195. His order revoking that sanction must therefore be set aside. The rule is accordingly made absolute