JUDGMENT 1. In this case a rule was granted calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why his order, dated the 3rd October 1902, should not be set aside, on the ground that the persons who have been charged jointly with the Petitioners with the commission of the same offence have been tried and acquitted, and that no such order should have been made until such judgment of acquittal had been appealed against and set aside ; and why if the order be not set aside, the case should not be transferred for trial to some other Court. It seems that a charge was preferred against the two Petitioners and others under secs. 143, 342 and 322 of the Indian Penal Code, and three persons, who were sent up by the Police, were put on their trial under those sections. The result of that trial was that those three persons were acquitted under sec. 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate who disposed of the case holding that the case is "doubtful false." It seems that the two present Petitioners, who are the jemadar and the naib of the zemindar, were not sent up by the Police in that case because the evidence against them was considered to be weaker than that against the other three persons and not sufficient to support the charge. However, after the acquittal of the three persons an Inspector appears to have made a written representation to the District Magistrate with reference to the result of the case, and the Magistrate called for the record and issued notices both to the persons who had been acquitted in that case as well as to the present Petitioners to show cause why further proceedings should not be taken. He appears to have heard the cause which they had to show, and has recorded a long order in which, after stating his reasons for disagreeing with the Deputy Magistrate who disposed of the case acquitting the three persons originally tried, he says, "on the whole therefore I think this case has wrongly ended in acquittal. At the same time I do not consider it of sufficient importance to move the Local Government and then the High Court ;" and after recording that remark he directs that the two Petitioners, the naib and the jemadar, should be placed on their trial under secs.342, 323 and 114. 2. At the same time I do not consider it of sufficient importance to move the Local Government and then the High Court ;" and after recording that remark he directs that the two Petitioners, the naib and the jemadar, should be placed on their trial under secs.342, 323 and 114. 2. We think that in directing the trial of those two persons the Magistrate has not rightly exercised his discretion and that, if he thought that it was necessary to interfere in the case, it was his duty to have moved the Local Government to have the acquittal set aside. At present, the facts of the case have been before a Court and that Court has held the case to be false. Until that judgment is set aside we do not think that any order should have been passed directing the trial of these two Petitioners. We, therefore, make the rule absolute and set aside the order of the Magistrate.