JUDGMENT 1. There has been considerable irregularity in the proceedings in this case. On the complaint of one Khosdel Sarkar, two persons Sri Nath Haider and Panchu Ghosh, were summoned. Sri Nath appeared and, on a trial before the Deputy Magistrate, he was acquitted on the 19th December 1906. In the meantime, process for arrest was issued against Panchu. He subsequently surrendered and the Deputy Magistrate, on the 28th March 1907, passed an order to the following effect:--"From the evidence in the case, I do not think the accused Panchu Ghosh should be proceeded against. The warrant and other processes are withdrawn." It does not appear under what section of the Code this order was made. It was certainly not an order under sec. 203 C. Cr. P., because the case had already gone beyond the stage of sec. 203, C. Cr. P. Processes had already been issued against both the accused. It was not also an order of acquittal because no order of acquittal under sec. 245, C. Cr. P., could be passed unless evidence was taken. No opportunity was given to the complainant to attend and give evidence. The judgment in favour of Sri Nath could not be evidence in favour of or against Panchu. The District Magistrate by his order, dated the 14th May 1907, set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate and directed a retrial. As the order of the Deputy Magistrate was not one either under sec. 203 of the Code of dismissal of the complaint or an order of discharge of the accused, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction under sec. 437 of the Code to make an order for retrial. He should have referred the case, to this Court. That order is, therefore, set aside. 2. The order of the Deputy Magistrate, dated the 28th March 1907, should also be set aside. The proper course for the Deputy Magistrate was to send notice to the complainant and direct him to proceed with the case. He could not make any order in the case without notice to the complainant because the case had not been disposed of under sec. 347 of the Code. He should have proceeded regularly and passed orders according to law. He could not make any order in the case without notice to the complainant because the case had not been disposed of under sec. 347 of the Code. He should have proceeded regularly and passed orders according to law. Under these circumstances, we are of opinion that the Deputy Magistrate or any other Magistrate to whom the case may be transferred by the District Magistrate should proceed according to law after giving notice to the complainant We order accordingly.