JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon the Magistrate of the district to show cause why the order in this case, directing the prosecution of the Petitioners should not be set aside on the strength of the rulings in Panchu Singh v. Umor Mahomed Sheikh 4 C.W.N. 346 (1899) and Bishun Das Ghosh v. The King-Emperor 7 C.W.N. 493 (1902). The facts are that the Petitioners were charged along with two other persons with having committed certain offences under secs. 379, 341 and 147. They were tried by the Deputy Magistrate and acquitted. Then an application was made to the Deputy Magistrate to issue processes against the present Petitioners; but the Deputy Magistrate rejected that application and refused to issue processes. The Sessions Judge, however, directed him to do so. This application in revision is made for the setting aside of the order of the Sessions Judge. We think that, the order of the Sessions Judge ought to be sot aside on the strength of the rulings quoted above. The Deputy Magistrate found that the case against the Petitioners was not a true one; and, until that decision is set aside by a higher authority, which has not been done in this case, the decision must hold good. There is no ground for proceeding against the Petitioners. The rule is accordingly made absolute.