JUDGMENT : Richards, J. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sessions Judge of Cawnpur, by which he confirmed an order of the Joint Magistrate of the same place, sentencing the applicant to ten days' rigorous imprisonment under section 186 of the Penal Code, 1860. It appears that Chhedi was left in possession of certain licensed premises, and it is alleged that on the police coming to the premises, Chhedi refused them admission. The consequence of this was that the employers of Chhedi, the licensees of the premises, were charged under section 186 before Mr. Holmes, Joint Magistrate He acquitted the licensees and forthwith, under section 190, sub-section (1), clause (c), took cognizance of an offence against Chhedi. As the result of this, Chhedi was tried by Mr. Holmes, convicted and sentenced to ten days' rigorous imprisonment. The grounds, upon which revision is sought, is that under the provisions of section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate was bound to have informed him that he was entitled to be tried by another Court before he took any evidence. The Government pleader meets this objection by referring to the provisions of section 537 and says that tills Court cannot in revision set aside the conviction unless it is satisfied that there has been a failure of justice, and that the irregularity has in fact occasioned that failure. If failure of justice means that the accused was convicted when he ought to have been acquitted, I should have great difficulty in the present case in arriving at such a conclusion. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, in almost any case for the Court in revision to be satisfied that a wrongful acquittal or conviction was in fact occasioned by the omission on the part of the Magistrate to give the information required by section 191. The question for consideration then arises, is the neglect of the Magistrate, an error, omission or irregularity, within the meaning of section 537, or is it not something more, amounting to an illegality as the Privy Council appears to have held the irregular joining of charges against an accused person? Subrahmania Ayyar v. King-Emperor, [1901] I.L.R., 25 Mad, p. 61. 2. Subrahmania Ayyar v. King-Emperor, [1901] I.L.R., 25 Mad, p. 61. 2. After a good deal of consideration I have come to the conclusion that the omission to inform the accused of his right as directed by section 191 is not a mere irregularity. Section 191 clearly pre-supposes that a Magistrate who takes cognizance of an offence of his own motion, must to some extent have formed an opinion adverse to the accused, and for that reason the section gives the accused the right, if lie-so desires, to be tried by a Magistrate who has formed no opinion whatever in the case prior to the trial. I think that the very language of section 597 shows that it was never intended to apply to a case where the Magistrate has neglected to comply with the provisions of section 191, I have already pointed out the difficulty if not impossibility of the Court in revision in deciding that the failure of justice is occasioned by the Magistrate's neglect. 3. The section provides, further, that it is the finding, sentence or order of a Court of competent jurisdiction that is not to be altered or reversed. I think that the meaning of section 191 is that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence under section 190, clause (c), is not competent to try the case unless and until he has informed the accused before taking any evidence that he is entitled to have his case tried by another Court. If it is thought desirable to take any further proceedings against the accused, they might be taken in accordance with the law. I set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, dated the 12th August, 1905, and also the order of the Joint Magistrate, dated the 27th July, 1905.