JUDGMENT Niamatullah, J. - These are two applications for revision by Radhelal and others against the orders passed by Mr. Islam Nabi Khan in two cross-cases. The Applicants were convicted of an offence u/s 323, I. P. C, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 each.. They were also bound over u/s 106, Code of Criminal Procedure. In the cross-case brought by the complainant the accused were discharged as a result of the finding arrived at by the Magistrate in the case in which the present Applicants were the accused. The proceedings of the Magistrate are impugned on two main grounds. It is said that the Magistrate disregarded the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. which requires the statements of witnesses being recorded at length in the language of the Court. Secondly, it is contended that the Magistrate did not give sufficient latitude to Counsel appealing for the Applicants to cross-examine the witnesses examined against them. 2. It appears that the two cases were pending before a Tahsildar Magistrate of the Second Class. The charge originally was one of grievous hurt, and it was probably considered that the cases should be tried by a Magistrate of the Second Class at least. That Magistrate recorded the evidence of all the witnesses for the prosecution in the case in which the Applicants were the accused. No cross-examination had, however, taken place before him. He was transferred, and was succeeded by a Tahsildar, who had only third class powers. The case was then transferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mr. Islam Nabi Khan, who disposed of the case in the manner already indicated. The witnesses for the prosecution were not examined-in-chief afresh, apparently because the parties did not desire that the accused should be tried de novo in all respects. The witnesses were cross-examined on the 23rd of May, 1935, which appears to be the first date of hearing before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Magistrate took down the statements in cross-examination in English in his own hand, and no separate record of statements in vernacular was prepared. An application was made on the same date, in which it is stated that the complainant " Motilal had been discharged " without having been cross-examined on the facts of ' marpit ' etc. The Magistrate took down the statements in cross-examination in English in his own hand, and no separate record of statements in vernacular was prepared. An application was made on the same date, in which it is stated that the complainant " Motilal had been discharged " without having been cross-examined on the facts of ' marpit ' etc. It was prayed that cross-examination of that witness be allowed " on points of facts as well." The application is couched in very respectful language, and the prayer for cross-examination of Motilal is preceded by an apology for the lengthy cross-examination of Motilal " on the point of possession of the land and the trees," which was considered to be inevitable. The order passed by the learned Magistrate on this application was that it should be laid for orders on the date fixed. No orders were subsequently passed on this application. An affidavit has been filed in this Court, in which it is complained that the Magistrate did not allow sufficient opportunity of cross-examination. A similar affidavit was filed before the Sessions Judge, who was moved in the first instance in revision. The opposite party filed a counter affidavit, which traversed the allegations made on behalf of the Applicants. I have glanced through the cross-examination of witnesses, and in particular that of Moti, and find that it is extremely meagre. It appears to me that the cases had to be tried by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate himself, who had plenty of other and more important work to do. He did not consider it worth his while to devote more than such time as was necessary for him to satisfy himself as regards the truth of the matter in controversy. Apparently he considered that the ends of substantial justice warranted a more summary procedure than is enjoined by law. With the best of intention he acted in disregard of the* law and did not allow more than such cross-examination as he thought to be necessary nor did he consider it necessary to have a record of the evidence in the language of the Court. In my opinion, it is-of the utmost importance that the procedure in the trial of a criminal case should inspire confidence in the parties. In my opinion, it is-of the utmost importance that the procedure in the trial of a criminal case should inspire confidence in the parties. It is unfortunate that a case like this should have to be re-tried ; but I am unable to uphold the order of conviction and the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate. Nor can I accept the suggestion, made on behalf of the Applicants, that the Applicants should be acquitted and no re-trial ordered. Such a course will obviously be an injustice to the opposite party. The Applicants pressed their revision on good grounds of law ; and if the consequence of success in revision is that they have to undergo a re-trial ; the responsibility is their own. In these Circumstances, I set aside the order of the Magistrate in both cases, and direct the District Magistrate to send both the cases for re-trial to a competent Magistrate, preferably one who has more leisure than a Sub Divisional Magistrate.