JUDGMENT : WALSH, J.:— This is an application in revision against an order made by the City Magistrate of Lucknow on the 22nd of May, 1919, awarding compensation to a defendant against a complainant under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant was a person of the name of Harris whose complaint was dismissed. He claimed to be a European British subject, a fact which is disputed, but for the purpose of the preliminary objection it must be assumed. He applies in revision to this Court to question the order made against him under section 250 by the City Magistrate of Lucknow. No body can doubt that a superior Criminal Court has jurisdiction under section 435 and the other appropriate section of the Criminal Procedure Code, to examine an order under section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the exercise of its ordinary revisional jurisdiction. 2. The question is whether assuming that a person against whom such an order has been made is a European British subject, this High Court has jurisdiction in the case of an order made by the City Magistrate of Lucknow. I think it has. The High Court in such case is, as defined by section 4(j) to mean the High Court of Judicature of the North-Western Provinces in reference to proceedings against European British subjects. I think this was certainly a proceeding. I do not know what else it could possibly be called. It clearly was against Mr. Harris and it ordered him to pay a sum as compensation, and it is assumed for the purpose of this objection that he is a European British subject. 3. A further argument was submitted, namely that Mr. Harris, assuming that he is a European British subject, has relinquished his right under section 454. I do not agree with this view. Section 454 provides that if a European British subject does not claim to be dealt with as such by the Magistrate, (that obviously refers to a charge made against him in respect of which he may be tried by the Magistrate or committed) he shall be held to have relinquished his right to be dealt with or any special terms applicable to a European British subject and shall not assert it at any subsequent stage of the same case. In the first place I do not think an application in revision is a subsequent stage of the same case. It is a totally independent matter giving a right to apply to a superior court independently of any proceedings necessarily subsequent or consequent upon the hearing of the original case. Secondly I do not think Mr. Harris, assuming that he was a European British subject, would have had any right to make the claim at all under section 450. It had become a complaint in the court of the City Magistrate of Lucknow and all the provisions of the Code applicable to complainants were applicable to him. Section 250 was applicable to him. Whether he was a European British subject or not and therefore there was nothing that he could relinquish. Thirdly I think the jurisdiction of this Court or of Oudb, as the case may be, in these matters must depend on a question of fact and not upon the question whether a man chooses to make a particular claim in a particular case or not. The question of fact is whether this proceeding was one against a European British subject. It does not seem to matter in the least whether he chose to make the claim or not. In my opinion this is the proper court. The preliminary objection fails subject to the determination, of the question whether he is a European British subject, with which I will deal at a later stage. 4. I find as a fact that Mr. Harris is a European British subject.