JUDGMENT Madeley, J. - It has been argued before me in this criminal revision against a prosecution of Chunni Lal and Tirbeni for an offence u/s 193 Indian Panel Code., that the prosecution is illegal. The fact are that the two accused made a report against Dukhai and 13 other persons for rioting by coining and throwing stones into their house. They said that Tirbeni had been hit upon the shoulder by a brickbat and that another brickbat had hit the I 1/2 years old daughter of Tirbeni as she was lying alone on a not and that she had died that very night. 2. Three points have been raised. First, it is objected that the Magistrate when making his complaint u/s 476 Code of Criminal Procedure., did not specify the statements alleged to have been false. 3. This objection was also taken before the learned Sessions Judge who tried the appeal against the complaint. The statements were, ho however, clearly enough specified in the complaint of the Magistrate for the Judge to be able to select them out without any doubt. In my opinion there is no force in this objection. 4. The second point is that neither of the applicants ever made the statement about the child with which they are now being charged. It may be mentioned in this connection that a complaint relating to the brickbat injury upon Tirbeni has been set aside by the Sessions Judge and only the complaint respecting the Statement about the injury to the child remains I have examined the statements of Chunni Lal and Tirbeni and it seems to me that there is no force in this objection either. 5. The third point is that there is no legal evidence on the file which can justify the complaint, because the medical Officer, who made the post mortem examination on the child and whose past mortem report is on the rile, was not examined as a witness either in the case or in the proceedings u/s 476 Code of Criminal Procedure. In my opinion the wording of Section 476 Code of Criminal Procedure. does not make it compulsory that all the material upon which a Magistrate acts in making such a complaint as this should be legally admissible evidence taken on oath, I am supported in this view by U Htin Gyaw v. King-Emperor AIR 1927 Rang. 130. 6. In my opinion the wording of Section 476 Code of Criminal Procedure. does not make it compulsory that all the material upon which a Magistrate acts in making such a complaint as this should be legally admissible evidence taken on oath, I am supported in this view by U Htin Gyaw v. King-Emperor AIR 1927 Rang. 130. 6. It appears to me therefore that there is no good ground for interference in this case and I therefore dismiss this application.