JUDGMENT 1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Monghyr and also upon the Opposite Party to show cause why the order of acquittal under sec. 247 and the order of dismissal of the complaint of the Petitioner Madho Chowdhury under sec. 203 should not be set aside and the case proceeded with. It appears that an elephant of the zemindar got loose into a chilly field belonging to one Turab Mian. The accused are then said to have attacked the elephant with spears and lathis and maimed the animal. Apparently, the learned Magistrate, who heard the complaint did no think that the animal had been maimed, but he issued process under sec. 426. When the day came for disposal, the servant of the zemindar, who had made the complaint, was dead, and the Magistrate adopted the rather extraordinary course, although he knew that the servant was dead, of acquitting the accused under sec. 247, Cr. P. C. In the meantime, another servant of the zemindar, the present Petitioner, had complained to the Sub-Divisional Officer of the same offence of maiming his master's elephant. The Sub Divisional Officer dismissed this case under sec. 203, Cr. P. C., on the ground that the previous acquittal was a bar to his taking cognizance of it. 2. We must point out in the first place that the previous acquittal can be no bar, because it was wholly without jurisdiction, and if it is a bar, it is now going to be removed. 3. We make the Rule absolute. We set aside the order of acquittal under sec. 247 and the order of dismissal under sec. 203, and direct that there should be a further enquiry, and in making that enquiry, it should be ascertained before process is issued what the nature of the injury to the elephant is, for it will largely depend upon that, whether the jurisdiction falls under sec. 426, 427 or 429 and that would affect the course of the proceedings at the trial.