JUDGMENT Dalal, J. - The applicant Debi Prasad was complainant against certain persons whom he prosecuted for committing offences under Sections 352 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code which offences were within the cognizance of a Magistrate invested with any powers, even the lowest, those of a third class. The complaint was filed in the court of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate who transferred it to the Bench Magistrates of Gorakhpur u/s 192 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial started before three Magistrates of the Bench but subsequently from the next hearing only one Magistrate M. Hakim Barham heard the evidence of both parties and pronounced judgment acquitting the accused and directing the complainant Debi Prasad to pay compensation u/s 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under paragraph 3 of that Section Debi Prasad appealed to the District Magistrate to have the order for compensation set aside. In that appeal he described the order as having been made by M Hakim Barham, an Honorary Magistrate of the third class. The District Magistrate dismissed the appeal and a revision from that order was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Debi Prasad has come here in revision. 2. It is argued that M. Hakim Barham had no jurisdiction to try the case. I however agree with the point of view placed before this Court by the learned Government Advocate. He said that transfer was made u/s 192 to the Bench Magistrates one of whom alone being invested with powers of a Magistrate of third class was empowered to hear and try the case under orders issued by the District Magistrate consonant to the provisions of Section 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to him even if there was any irregularity in M. Hakim Barham hearing the case alone, that irregularity did not vitiate the proceedings under clause (e) of Section 529. The learned counsel for the applicant quoted a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in Mathura v. King-Emperor (1918) 41 All. 116=16 A.L.J. 88 4 I.C. 344=19 Cr.L.J. 1004. In that case the question was whether the applicant was prejudiced and in consequence whether the trial was illegal. In the present case question of prejudice can arise. Munshi Hakim Barham had jurisdiction to try the case sitting alone. He heard all the evidence and he was the Magistrate who pronounced judgment. 116=16 A.L.J. 88 4 I.C. 344=19 Cr.L.J. 1004. In that case the question was whether the applicant was prejudiced and in consequence whether the trial was illegal. In the present case question of prejudice can arise. Munshi Hakim Barham had jurisdiction to try the case sitting alone. He heard all the evidence and he was the Magistrate who pronounced judgment. This is not a case where the Magistrate pronouncing judgment had been absent from Court at some of the hearings and in consequence there was a likelihood of prejudice being created against the prisoner or the person called upon to pay compensation. When no prejudice is caused this Court will be very reluctant to interfere with the acquittal of persons who have undergone a. trial in a court of competent jurisdiction or with the order of such a competent court u/s 250. It must also be remembered that this order has been considered by the District Magistrate and upheld. I dismiss this application.