JUDGMENT : RAFIQ, J. This is an application in revision, and the facts which have given rise to it are as follows:— The applicant Gokul Chand filed a complaint against the opposite party Malmbir Miser charging the latter under section 508 of the Penal Code, 1860. The complaint was filed in the court of a Deputy Magistrate at Jaunpur. Before the conclusion of the trial the trying Magistrate was transferred and the case was sent to Mr. Mehta, Joint Magistrate for trial. Mr. Mehta commenced the trial de novo. He examined the complainant and one of the witnesses for the prosecution only. He recorded the statement of the accused and took a written-statement from him. The learned Joint Magistrate, refused examine the rest of the prosecution witnesses. He dismissed the complaint and made an order that the complainant should pay Rs. 50 to the opposite party as compensation. The complainant went up in revision to the District Magistrate who rejected the application for revision. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the procedure of the learned Joint Magistrate was illegal and that he could not dismiss the complaint after having entered on evidence for the prosecution. It is further urged that the learned Joint Magistrate should have examined all the witnesses for the prosecution before pronouncing any opinion on the merits of the complaint. There is no doubt that the procedure of the learned Joint Magistrate is open to objection. He could not after having heard evidence for the prosecution pass an order dismissing the complaint, though he could have made an order of discharge. The entire evidence for the prosecution should have been received by the learned Joint Magistrate, unless for some very strong reason he considered that evidence unnecessary. There is nothing on the record to show that the evidence which the complainant wanted to produce and which the learned Joint Magistrate declined to receive was unnecessary and unconnected with the allegations made in the complaint. The order of the Magistrate is set aside. He must try the case according to law and receive the evidence for the prosecution as mentioned in the application of the complainant dated the 14th of November, 1912.