JUDGMENT Lort-Williams, J. - In this case the petitioner instituted a complaint against the accused and several others upon the allegation that on 11th November 1934, the accused persons, in collusion and conspiracy with each other induced the petitioner to go to a certain house and forced her to put her thumb impression on a number of stamp papers and blank demi papers. In doing so they abused her, and pushed her neck down, and forcibly kept her sitting there for an hour and slapped, pinched and threatened her. 2. The Subdivisional Magistrate of Tamluk ordered an inquiry by the President of the Panchayat, who reported that the case was true. Thereupon the accused were summoned u/s 352. On 24th January 1935 which was the date fixed for hearing, the petitioner did not arrive in time and the accused were acquitted u/s 247, Criminal P.C. She filed a petition explaining that she lived 16 miles away from Tamluk Court, and had to come walking from her house to Court, and was a little late. The affidavits put by the accused lead one to think that the petitioner's story was not true, because it seems clear that there is a bus service running from the Tamluk Court to a place on the road only two miles away from her house. There is further evidence contained in the affidavits to show that her witnesses stayed at Tamluk the night before the case was called on, and it is alleged that she also stayed at a hotel in Tamluk. The Magistrate, on the petition for revival, said that the accused have been acquitted u/s 247, and nothing could be done. The petitioner then filed a fresh complaint on the same facts on 7th February 1935. The Magistrate made the following order, namely, that the accused persons had been acquitted on the same facts u/s 247, and a prayer for revival had been rejected. As such, no further action could be taken u/s 403. On a petition for revision, the Additional District Magistrate of Midnapur, on a 21st February 1935 made the following order: The petition is misconceived. The offence being triable under summons procedure the S.D.O. was competent to dismiss the case u/s 247, Criminal P.C. Petition rejected. 3. As such, no further action could be taken u/s 403. On a petition for revision, the Additional District Magistrate of Midnapur, on a 21st February 1935 made the following order: The petition is misconceived. The offence being triable under summons procedure the S.D.O. was competent to dismiss the case u/s 247, Criminal P.C. Petition rejected. 3. Now the argument for the petitioner is that though further proceedings u/s 352 are barred, this does not prevent the petitioner from making a fresh complaint under Sub-section (2) of Section 403. The same facts disclosed other offences beyond the offence u/s 352, for example offences under Sections 341, 347, 384 and 509 are possibly disclosed in the petitioner's complaint. These offences, though arising on the same facts, are distinct offences, and under Sub-section (2) a fresh trial in respect of a complaint under these sections would not be barred. This argument is sound. The result is that the order of the Magistrate, Mr. A.K. Dutt, dated 7th February 1935 must be set aside, and the case sent back to him for disposal according to law. Jack, J. 4. I agree.