Order.- The facts of the case out of which this revision petition arises are very simple and are fully set out in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioners were the accused in C.C. No. 162 of 1945 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ranipet. That was a case brought by Ponnappa Mudali charging the accused with having defamed him. After four prosecution witnesses were examined the case stood posted to 24th January, 1946, for the examination of the rest of the prosecution witnesses. When the case was called on that date, the complainant was said to be absent and the accused were discharged under section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant did not file a revision petition against that order of discharge, but he preferred a fresh complaint against the petitioners for the same offence as he was clearly entitled to do under the law. The Additional First Glass Magistrate dismissed that complaint after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and without issuing process to the accused. The complainant preferred a revision petition in the Sessions Court of Vellore, against the order of dismissal of the complaint, and the Sessions Judge set aside that order and directed the restoration of, and further enquiry into, the complaint. The main objection raised for the petitioners is that the Sessions Judge ordered further enquiry against the petitioners without notice to them and without giving them an opportunity to show cause, as required in proviso to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is pointed out that this was the second complaint and that in the prior proceeding the accused had appeared and had contested the case and that thereafter the accused were discharged. I find no force in this contention as the proviso to section 436 only directs notice in the case of “any person who has been discharged” and not in the case of a person to whom no process had been issued and when the complaint has been dismissed without notice to him. I find no force in this contention as the proviso to section 436 only directs notice in the case of “any person who has been discharged” and not in the case of a person to whom no process had been issued and when the complaint has been dismissed without notice to him. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Apparao Mudaliar v. Janaki Ammal1: “An accused person is said to be discharged (within the meaning of the proviso to section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) when the case against him is thrown out under sections 209, 253 or 259 or when the Advocate-General enters a nolle prosequi under section 333. The expression ‘person who has been discharged’ in section 436 refers to a person who has been discharged under sections 209, 253 or 259. A person against whom no process has been issued under section 204 is not a discharged person and therefore no notice is necessary to him, when ......the Sessions Court directs further enquiry into a complaint dismissed under section 203 or sub-section (3) of section 204.” The same view was held by the Allahabad High Court in Emperor v. Gajraj Singh2. On the merits there is no substance in this case. As pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge the real test is good faith, and this is simply satisfied by the fact that the complainant was present at 11a.m. on the date of hearing. The only default committed was that he was not there at 10a.m. which was mentioned in the muchilika executed by him; but it is evident that he came within the appointed time and he had to go away to instruct his vakil and came back to Court at 11a.m. which was the appointed hour for the sitting of the Court. In these circumstances the dismissal of the second complaint by the Additional First Class Magistrate was not justified, and the learned Sessions Judge was right in reversing that order and directing further enquiry. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.