Order.- This is a petition in revision against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Cuddapah, who, while acting under section 346(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, decided to proceed with the case as a preliminary reg1ster case. The circumstances giving rise to this case are these: A charge sheet was filed before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Pulivendla, against 14 persons under sections 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 19(f), Arms Act. The accused are said to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of attacking and killing the members of the opposite side, some of them armed with unlicensed guns and others with stones, and in prosecution of this common object, caused some pallet injuries to some members of the prosecution party. The Magistrate thought that the material on record did not warrant a trial for an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code, that the evidence pointed only to offences some of which are of a first class nature and that therefore they are triable only by a Magistrate of the first class. In that view he discharged the accused for an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code and submitted the records under section 346(1), Criminal Procedure Code, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for trial of other offences. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate disagreed with the view of the Sub-Magistrate as to the effect of the evidence, and came to the conclusion that the facts spoken to by the prosecution disclosed an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code. He therefore began to proceed with the case as a preliminary reg1ster case for an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code. In this revision case, the procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is complained against. It is argued that a Magistrate acting under section 346(2), Criminal Procedure Code, has no jurisdiction to try the accused for an offence in respect of which they have been discharged. The order of discharge could be set aside only under section 437, Criminal Procedure Code and so long as the discharge remains in force, it was not competent for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to convert the calendar case into a preliminary enquiry case for an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be a legitimate one. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be a legitimate one. In this case, the Magistrate has discharged the petitioners for an offence under sectiop 307, Indian Penal Code and submitted the records to the Sub-Divisional: Magistrate as he felt that the offences disclosed by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were of a first class nature triable by a first class Magistrate. All that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate could do was to try the case as transferred to him. If the parties concerned thought that the order of discharge required to be revised, they could have moved under section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, any of the Courts mentioned therein. That such a revision could be entertained against an order of discharge similar to the one passed in this case is clear from a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Nalla Baligadu v. State1, to which I was a party. It was held there that an order, which said that no prima facie case was made out against an accused for offences triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and therefore he should be discharged of those offences and the evidence disclosed only lesser offences not triable exclusively by a Magistrate amounted to an order of discharge within the meaning of section 253 and could be revised under section 437, Crirninal Procedure Code, notwithstanding the case against the accused for lesser offences was still pending. If the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate that originally tried it in respect of an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code, is not reversed under section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while trying the case under section 346(2), Criminal Procedure Code, cannot convert the case into a preliminary reg1ster case in respect of the same offence which in effect amounts to setting aside the order of discharge. As it is not competent for this Magistrate to do so, he is directed to try the case as a calendar case as it was transferred to him by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Pulivendla. The Revision Petition is therefore allowed. V.P.S. ----- Petition allowed.