JUDGMENT 1. This rule was granted calling upon the Magistrate of the district of Darjeeling to show cause why the order for further inquiry made by the Sessions Judge should not be set aside. The case was one under sec. 414, I. P. C., in respect of certain bales of wool. The Magistrate, or rather the Deputy Commissioner, after the examination of certain witnesses called by the prosecution as to a particular letter said to have been addressed by the accused, ordered that the Police should make a full inquiry in respect to the various matters connected with the offence attributed to the accused. The Police seems to have reported after such inquiry in B. form, namely, that the case was true ; but that no evidence was forthcoming as against the accused ; and, upon that report being submitted, the Deputy Commissioner ordered as follows :--"Mistake of law. Sec. 414, I. P. C. The accused is released on bail." Against this order of the Deputy Commissioner, the complainant moved the Sessions Judge and by his order of the 9th October last, that officer, treating the order of the 18th September to which we have just referred as an order of discharge, directed a further inquiry under sec. 437, Cr. P. C. 2. The first point made before us by the learned counsel for the Petitioner (the accused) is that the order of the Deputy Commissioner of the 18th September was not an order either under sec. 203 of the Code or an order of discharge such as a Sessions Judge under sec. 437, Cr. P. C., was competent to interfere with. We have considered this question, and we are clearly of opinion that, though not in form, but in substance, it was intended to be an order of discharge of the accused; and it was quite open to the Sessions Judge, upon a motion being made to him by the complainant, to make the order which he did on the 9th September last. 3. The other point that has been placed before us is that no sufficient ground was made out, and there does not exist any sufficient ground, upon which a further inquiry could be ordered. 3. The other point that has been placed before us is that no sufficient ground was made out, and there does not exist any sufficient ground, upon which a further inquiry could be ordered. We have carefully examined the order of the Sessions Judge, and we must confess that we do not get any help from the contents of his order in determining the question before us. What that officer says is shortly this : "It is in the interest of all concerned that there should be a further inquiry into the charge brought by Mr. Korb, on the 20th July 1903, and that inquiry should be held by a Magistrate who would be in a position to state all the facts clearly." With a view however to see whether there were any substantial grounds for ordering a further inquiry, we have had the petition of complaint of the 24th August read to us, and, though there are statements made therein that evidence was forthcoming to prove certain facts, yet we are not quite satisfied that substantial grounds were set out, such as to justify the Sessions Judge in ordering a further inquiry, as he did. But we should not, however, commit ourselves to saying that there does not exist any ground for a further inquiry into the matter of complaint against the accused. All that we need say is that, upon the materials which have been placed before us, we are not quite satisfied as to that. We may state that as held by a Full Bench of this Court, it is quite open to the complainant to ask the Deputy Commissioner to revive the prosecution, and ask for a further inquiry. That officer, to our minds, would be the best Judge to determine, he having had before him all the materials upon which he made the order of discharge of 18th September, whether there are sufficient grounds, by way of fresh evidence or otherwise, upon which a fresh inquiry ought to be instituted against the accused. We should not say anything so as to prejudice either the prosecution or the accused in this matter. All that we need say upon the present occasion is, that the order of the Sessions Judge does not state any proper grounds for directing a further inquiry and upon this ground alone we set aside his order.