JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioners in this case were convicted under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the Union Bench, Ghatua and sentenced to pay a line of Rs. 5/ -. The trial before the Union. Bench was under the provisions of Chapter VII of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act V of 1919. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence an application was made before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Contai, who under the provisions of section 71 of the Act set aside the order of conviction and sentence and sent the case back to the same Bench for fresh disposal after compliance with the mandatory rules. It is against this order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the present Rule is directed. 2. MR. Manishi Kumar Das, appealing in support of the Rule argues that the order for re-hearing by the Union Bench, as directed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate was without Jurisdiction. It is argued that even conceding that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in the circumstances of the case, had jurisdiction to order a re-trial, he should have directed a retrial by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to him and not to the Union Bench. In my judgment the Rule must be made absolute. 3. BENGAL Act V of 1919 contemplates the formation of the Union Bench and Union Court under section 65 of the Act, A Union Bench is constituted for the trial in the whole or any part of the Union of the offences specified in Schedule IV, if committed within the local limits of its jurisdiction or if the case is transferred to the bench by a District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Section 73 of the Act provides that Union Courts could try suits specified in Section 74 of the Act. 4. ON an examination of the provisions of Section 71 of the Act, it will be seen that while directing a re-trial, the case should be sent to a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. it does not provide for a re-trial by the Union Bench. In this view the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, so far as it relates to the retrial by the Union Bench is concerned, must be set aside. it does not provide for a re-trial by the Union Bench. In this view the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, so far as it relates to the retrial by the Union Bench is concerned, must be set aside. I, therefore, while upholding the order of retrial direct that the retrial should be held by a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction subordinate to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute.