JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. A large number of persons were on their trial on various charges in the court of the District Magistrate of Azamgarh. He has discharged some of the accused persons and framed charges against others, one of the charges being that they have committed robbery. This application was made for the revision of the Magistrate's order, discharging some of the accused persons and charging others with the offence of robbery. As far as the order of discharge is concerned, there is no reason for interference. As regards the other charges the Magistrate has informed this Court that the, public prosecutor has applied to him to withdraw the charge of robbery, that he, the Magistrate, has consented, to the withdrawal of the charges, and that he has, in accordance with the provisions of clause (b) of section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, recorded an order of acquittal of that charge. 2. This being so, I do not deem it necessary to make any order on the application before me. It is contended that the Magistrate was not competent to make the order, inasmuch as he ought to have charged the accused with the offence of dacoity, an offence exclusively triable by the court of Sessions. It is unnecessary to decide after what has already taken place whether or not be accused should have been charged with the offence of dacoity. As a matter of fact, they were charged with the offence of robbery, which is an offence triable by the Magistrate. He having consented to the withdrawal of this charge the only course left to him was to make the order directed by clause (b), section 494. As there is nothing to call for an order of this Court, I direct that the record be returned at once.