JUDGMENT 1. We think the learned District Magistrate was in error in not hearing the pleader in the matter of the application by way of appeal preferred by the Petitioner under sec. 195 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, The principle laid down in the second paragraph of sec. 421 of the Code appears to be a salutary principle in a case like this, and we do not think that sec. 440 of the Code is one on which reliance can be placed. It is obvious that an order of rejection should not have been passed without hearing the pleader, who might have placed matters before the learned District Magistrate and explained them to him in a way which he may not have considered before the order of rejection was passed; and we think that the Petitioner was entitled, as of right-, to be heard through his pleader. We accordingly, set aside the order of the District Magistrate, dated the 31st August 1907, act direct that he do restore the case to his file and dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing the Petitioner's pleader on a date to be fixed by the District Magistrate. 2. The rule is made absolute.