JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling on the District Magistrate of Howrah, as also on the opposite party to show cause why the order of the Munsif directing the prosecution of the Petitioner under sec. 406, I.P.C., should not be set aside on the ground that an offence under sec. 406 is not one of the offences referred to in sec. 195, Cr.P.C., in respect of which the Munsif could order an enquiry under sec. 476, Cr.P.C. The application was made in the first instance to the learned Chief Justice, who directed that it should be laid before "the Bench taking the criminal business of the Court." A formal order was subsequently drawn up and signed constituting my learned brother and myself a Bench for the hearing of an application In the matter of the King-Emp. v. Kali Prosad Chatterjee. Mr. White appears for the Crown and urges that under the rulings reported at ILR 26 Mad. 98 Eranholi Athan v. King-Emperor and 139 In re Chennanagoud this Bench, if a Criminal Bench, has no authority to interfere with the proceedings of a Munsif taken under sec. 476, Criminal Procedure Code. This contention seems to be well-founded. 2. It may be that under the formal order signed by the Chief Justice we might regard ourselves as a special Civil Bench constituted for the purpose of hearing this application, but unfortunately the application is made under sec. 439, Criminal Procedure Code, and not under sec. 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the Rule has since been issued to the District Magistrate of Howrah instead of to the District Judge of Hughly. We think that we must therefore discharge this rule, which we accordingly do, leaving the Petitioner to take such action as he may be advised.