JUDGMENT Lodge, J. - This Rule arises out of an order of discharge under sec. 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner Nani Gopal Ghosh was the complainant in the case. He complained against the accused Nripendra Nath Chatterjee alleging that Nripendra was a Naib of the Mitra Babus in the period described in the plaint, that he realised rent from the tenants of the estate during the particular period and that after making all payments on behalf of the estate which the accused was entitled to make the accused had in his possession Rs. 1,204 odd of the realisation and that the accused had not paid those sums to the estate for which he had realised them and that he had in fact misappropriated that sum. Evidence was recorded before the learned Magistrate who did not seem to disbelieve the evidence that the accused was in fact a Naib of the estate as alleged, that he had realised the sums as alleged, and that the balance of the amount realised by him, after all the legitimate payments by him had been made up to the end of Chaitra, 1351 B.S., was approximately Rs. 1,204 as alleged. The learned Magistrate, without obtaining from the accused any statement as to what has happened to this money and on the assumption that further evidence is necessary to show criminal misappropriation, ordered that the accused be discharged, asserting that this is at best a matter for the Civil Court. This view was upheld in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge of 24-Parganas. 2. In my opinion, this view is wrong. It is true that mere realisation of money and failure to credit the same is not in itself criminal misappropriation, but the retention of money realised for a particular purpose without any justification shown ordinarily leads to the inference that it has been misappropriated; and the reasonable inference to draw when a person has realised money for somebody else and has not paid is that he has appropriated it to his own needs. It may be that in the present case more facts will emerge and that the accused will be able to show that the ordinary inference from failure to make over the money to the estate though it was realised ought not to be drawn. It may be that in the present case more facts will emerge and that the accused will be able to show that the ordinary inference from failure to make over the money to the estate though it was realised ought not to be drawn. But in my opinion there was no justification on the materials on record referred to in the order of the learned Magistrate for passing an order of discharge. In my opinion, this is clearly a case in which further enquiry should be directed. I therefore, order that the order of discharge be set aside and further enquiry be held into this matter by some Magistrate other than the Magistrate who passed the order of discharge.