JUDGMENT Stevens and Mitra, JJ. - This Rule was issued calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order made on the 5th of April last directing the prosecution of the Petitioners should not be set aside on the ground that the order was one which was not within his jurisdiction to make. 2. The circumstances of the case are as follows. On the 18th December 1901, a complaint was made against the Petitioners and against one Punchanand Das, charging them with an offence punishable u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was made to the senior Deputy Magistrate in charge in the absence of the District Magistrate from the station. The senior Deputy Magistrate made the complaint over to another Deputy Magistrate for careful inquiry and report. The second Deputy Magistrate, after inquiry, reported that there was no case except against Punchanand Das. The District Magistrate had evidently returned to the station, for the next two orders made in the case were by him. The first of these, namely, that of the 22nd January 1902, was that Punchanand should be summoned u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The second was dated the 4th February and made the case over to a third Deputy Magistrate for disposal. The case was then tried by the last-named Deputy Magistrate as against Punchanand Das and ended in the conviction of that person. Thereupon, the complainant applied to the trying Deputy Magistrate that the other persons named in his complaint might be brought before the Court and tried also; but the application was rejected by the Deputy Magistrate on the 20th of March 1902. The District Magistrate afterwards called for the case as he says, under the provisions of Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After referring to the record and making certain criticism on the judgment of the Deputy Magistrate who had tried the case, he recorded the following order on the 5th of April 1902: I now order the prosecution of the Police Sub-Inspector, Soshi Chowdhuri and Sub-Manager, Radhabullav Roy Chowdhuri, u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is this last order with which we are now concerned. It has been urged before us on the part of the Petitioners that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction, inasmuch as there was no case before him in which he could pass the order in question. 3. It is this last order with which we are now concerned. It has been urged before us on the part of the Petitioners that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction, inasmuch as there was no case before him in which he could pass the order in question. The District Magistrate has submitted in his explanation that the case was before him, inasmuch as he had taken it upon his file on the 22nd of January and he submits that the order now in question was but a supplementary order to that which he made on that date for the summoning of Punchanand Das. 4. We think that when once the District Magistrate made the case over for disposal to the Deputy Magistrate, it was out of his hands and he was not competent to pass any order relating to it other than an order such as might have been made by him under Chapter XXXII of the Code. That the ease was not in fact upon his own file was indicated by his own action in sending for the record, as he says, u/s 435. 5. We may refer to the case of Moul Singh v. Mahabir Singh (1899) 4 C.W.N. 242 and the case of Golapdy Sheikh v. Queen-Empress ILR (1900) Cal. 979 of the same, volume as having some bearing on the present case. 6. We think that the order of the District Magistrate cannot stand and we therefore make this Rule absolute and set it aside. 7. We may mention that we have just set aside the conviction in the case of Punchanand Das on the ground that the facts proved do not constitute an offence punishable u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code.