JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Bhagulpur to show cause why further enquiry should not be directed into the matter of the complaint of the Petitioner, Brij Kishore Ghose. We have heard Mr. Chaudhuri for the opposite party notwithstanding that the rule as drawn was issued on the District Magistrate only. We heard Mr. Chaudhuri on behalf of the opposite party because in our opinion, no order should be passed against an accused without his getting an opportunity of being heard. 2. The proceedings in this case and in the counter-case which was disposed of on the 17th July last, by Mr. Hollow, Sub Deputy Magistrate of Bhagulpur, were commenced in the middle of September last year. The dispute between the parties owed its origin to a pyne or water course, the people of Dariapur, of which the complainant is one, claiming to have exclusive right to the use of the water, their allegation being that the people of Harnathpur had no right to the use of the water of the channel. There is reason to believe that, on or about the 19th September last year, a riot took place, the Harnathpur people and the Dariapur people being arrayed on opposite sides. It is probable that there was a free fight Complaints were lodged by both sides and on the 19th October last year, both the complaints were dismissed under sec. 203 of the Code. The Sessions Judge of Bhagulpur, on applications under sec. 437 of the Code, directed on the 24th November 1905 that further inquiry should be held in both the cases. His order was to the effect that as there was a serious riot one party or the other must be guilty and as there were cross cases, they should be tried in the way indicated on various occasions by this Court, that is to say, that if one case is found to be false, the other case should be tried. 3. Babu Kumud Nath Sen was the Deputy Magistrate who dismissed both the complaints on the 9th October last year. When the cases went back under the order of the Sessions Judge, they were for some reason or other, transferred to another Magistrate, Babu Bepin Behari Banerji. If the learned Sessions Judge intended that further proceedings should be held under sec. Babu Kumud Nath Sen was the Deputy Magistrate who dismissed both the complaints on the 9th October last year. When the cases went back under the order of the Sessions Judge, they were for some reason or other, transferred to another Magistrate, Babu Bepin Behari Banerji. If the learned Sessions Judge intended that further proceedings should be held under sec. 203 of the Code, the transfer to Babu Bepin Behari was illegal; the cases ought to have come before Babu Kumud Nath. But as we understand the order of the learned Sessions Judge, bis object was to direct further inquiry under sec. 437 of the Code and not that these cases should be dealt with further under sec. 203, C. Cr. P. 4. Babu Bepin Behari took up the case against the Harnathpur people first, and, on the 23rd February 1906, after a judicial inquiry, be made an order under sec. 203 of the Code dismissing the complaint. This order was clearly illegal. The learned Sessions Judge did not intend that further proceedings should be taken under sec. 203. Notices ought to have been issued upon the opposite party and the case should have been decided in the usual way after trial. The result might have been either a discharge of the accused or an acquittal. 5. The case against the Dariapur people was then taken up and, by an order of the District Magistrate, the case was transferred to the Sub-Deputy Magistrate Mr. Hollow. Mr. Hollow found, on the 17th July last, that the case against the Dariapur people was not maintainable. He passed on elaborate judgment, reviewed the history of the case and the position of the parties and his conclusion was in these words:-"I find Brij Kishore Ghose, Baku Jha and others not guilty of an offence under sec. 147, I. P. C., and acquit them under sec. 258 of the Code." 6. Well, In the ordinary course of things, if the order of the 23rd February 1906 had not been passed, the case against the Harnathpur people would have been taken up; but there was a bar in the lower Court taking it up on account of the order of the 23rd February. 7. We should note that, on the 9th April this year, after the dismissal of the complaint under sec. 203 of C. Cr. 7. We should note that, on the 9th April this year, after the dismissal of the complaint under sec. 203 of C. Cr. P. an application was made to this Court for further inquiry; but the learned Judges Harington and Pratt, JJ., directed that the hearing of the application should be stayed until the disposal of the case by Mr. Hollow. The petition which we are now dealing with was presented thereafter and, from what we have stated above, there can be no doubt that we should set aside the order of the 23rd February 1906, and direct an enquiry into the case as was the intention of the learned Sessions Judge as expressed by his order of the 24th November 1905. Mr. Chaudhuri attempted to take us into the facta of the case but we think it undesirable at the present stage to express any opinion on the facts which might prejudice the party against whom we have directed a further enquiry. We think it our duty, on account of the irregularities which have taken place in the proceedings in this case, to direct that the order of the learned Sessions Judge be now carried out and we order accordingly. The case should be tried, if possible, by some other Magistrate In the head-quarters and the District Magistrate should pass the necessary orders therefor.