JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling on the Magistrate of the district to show cause why the order sanctioning the prosecution of one Kedar Nath Ghosh under sec. 471, I.P.C., should not be set aside. The facts are that Kedar Nath Ghosh applied to the Sub-Registrar of Mutlah, for registration of a kabuliyat on plain paper. The Sub-Registrar was of opinion that it was liable to stamp duty and he impounded it and sent it to the Collector. The Collector called on the lessee to pay up the deficit stamp duty. The ostensible lessee Bhiku Akhan appeared before the Deputy Collector and denied that he had ever executed it. The Deputy Collector under orders of the Collector then enquired into the facts of the execution and reported to the Collector that it was a forgery. The Collector examined the papers and heard the pleaders of both parties and finally on the 12th May ordered the prosecution of the Petitioner. On behalf of the Petitioner it is argued that the Collector had no authority to pass this order as neither he nor the Deputy Collector in charge of the stamp department was a Revenue Court within the meaning of sec. 195 or 476. 2. The Collector argues that he is a Court, that the enquiry made by the Deputy Collector was one made on his behalf under sec. 476 and that his order of the 12th May was accordingly one made with jurisdiction. 3. We are of opinion that neither the Collector nor the Deputy Collector in this case acted as a Court. The enquiry made by the Deputy Collector was not a judicial enquiry, having been made, as the Deputy Collector himself says, only for the purpose of determining who should be called on to pay the stamp duty (see his order of the 18th November). We accordingly consider the order of the Collector of the 12th May was made without jurisdiction. We therefore make the rule absolute and set the order in question aside.