JUDGMENT : TUDBALL, J. The facts of the case in which this reference by the Sessions Judge of Agra has been made, are as follows:— On the 23rd of September, 1912, the District Magistrate and Collector of Muttra received a petition from the two applicants, Bhullan and Maula Baksh. It was addressed “to the Colletor of the district” alleged that the Tehsildar of Sadabad had been guilty of certain acts, some of which, beyond all doubt, amounted to offences under the Penal Code, 1860 and some of which were by no means offences. The petitioners asked for issue of orders to the Tehsildar to refrain from doing these acts in future and for issue of orders to him to pay to them a certain sum of money which they claimed as their dues, and in the event of his not paying, they asked for sanction to bring a civil suit. Looking at the petition as a whole, it would not appear from a mere perusal that they intended it to be a complaint within the definition in clause (h) of section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The officer to whom the petition was presented was no doubt both a Collector and a District Magistrate. If the petition had been given to him in his capacity as Magistrate and with a view to his taking action, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would be immaterial, in my opinion, whether the words “bahuzur janab Collector saheb bahadur“did or did not appear at the head of the petition. The only difficulty which I have in the present case is in arriving at a clear finding as to whether the petitioners intended to move the District Magistrate to take action under the Code of Criminal Procedure or whether they merely intended to petition him as Collector and executive head of the district, with a view to his taking action departmentally. Whatever the intention of the petitioners might have been, the District Magistrate treated the petition as a complaint. He sent it to the Sub-Divisional Officer, a Magistrate of the first class, for enquiry. That Magistrate fixed a date and issued a notice to the petitioners through the police to appear on that date and to produce their evidence. The petitioners appeared and produced evidence and the Magistrate made his enquiry. He sent it to the Sub-Divisional Officer, a Magistrate of the first class, for enquiry. That Magistrate fixed a date and issued a notice to the petitioners through the police to appear on that date and to produce their evidence. The petitioners appeared and produced evidence and the Magistrate made his enquiry. The petitioners did not protest at all in the slightest to the course taken by the District Magistrate or to the enquiry being made by the Magistrate of the first class. On the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer the District Magistrate as such passed an order under section 203 dismissing the complaint. This order was passed on the 23rd of November, 1912. On the nth of December, 1912, the petitioners made an application, in revision to the Sessions Judge, against the order of the 23rd November 1912, dismissing as they stated it, “the complainant's complaint “and in their petition to the Sessions Judge, they urged that they had not been given reasonable opportunity by the Magistrate of substantiating their allegations and they clearly asked for a further magisterial enquiry into the matter of their complaint. Apparently, though it is not on the record, this application for revision was rejected. The District Magistrate took action under section 476 and proceeded to make a'complaint against the two petitioners for offences under sections 182 and 211 of the Penal Code, 1860. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to this Court recommending that the order directing prosecution of the applicants under section 211 be set aside but further directing that the order for prosecution under section 182 be allowed to stand, because in his opinion no “complaint” (within the true meaning) had been filed, that the matter was one with which the Collector could deal only in the capacity of a Collector and in that capacity it was not open to him to make a complaint under section 211, because he was not a court and, therefore, no offence under section 211 could have been committed. The reference, as it stands, is one which I could not possibly accept. The District Magistrate has clearly, throughout the matter, purported to act as a District Magistrate and in the exercise of his powers as such. The reference, as it stands, is one which I could not possibly accept. The District Magistrate has clearly, throughout the matter, purported to act as a District Magistrate and in the exercise of his powers as such. If no complaint was made to him and if the petitioners merely wished to and attempted to invoke the exercise of his powers as a Collector, then the whole of the action taken under the Code of Criminal Procedure was wrong and I should have to set aside the order in toto as it stands. If, on the other hand, the officer can be deemed to have acted as a Collector and to have made his complaint as Collector or a Revenue Court, then this Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to interfere and to say that the Collector shall not make a complaint of an offence under section 182 or 211 of the Penal Code, 1860. Because the Collector happens to complain of offences under two sections it does not follow that the Magistrate would convict the petitioners under both the sections. Be that as it may, though on perusal of the petition it seemed to me at first that the petitioners did not desire to make any “complaint” or to invoke the exercise by the Magistrate of his powers as such, their subsequent action in the matter throws a very different complexion on it. They saw action being taken by the Magistrate as a Magistrate. They produced witnesses and tendered evidence. Some of the facts alleged by them, if true, constituted criminal offences. They made no protest whatsoever at the course taken by the Magistrate. They even went further. They went to the Sessions Judge and asked for a further magisterial enquiry. In these events it is impossible to do otherwise than to conclude that, whatever may have been the heading and the language of the petition, they all along intended it to be a complaint and desired the Magistrate to take action under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view it is impossible for me to accept the reference. Nothing has been said on the merits nor do I think that at this stage of the case it is right to discuss that branch of the subject. In this view it is impossible for me to accept the reference. Nothing has been said on the merits nor do I think that at this stage of the case it is right to discuss that branch of the subject. It will be open to the Magistrate before whom the complaint has been filed to decide what offence has been committed and his discretion in the matter is unfettered. I therefore, do not accept the reference. Let the record be returned.