JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - This is a petition for revising an order dated 28-7.1952 passed by a Special 1st Class Magistrate of Aska in O.O. No. 10 of 1951 allowing the withdrawal of that case and acquitting the accused persons u/s 494 Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate permitted the withdrawal of the case on the basis of a petition filed by the Court Sub- Inspector of Aska which was as follows: In the Court of the Specialist Class Magistrate, Aska. O.O. No. 10/51 State v. Lokhono Das and Ors. u/s 188 I.P.C. (Corresponding to G.R. 100/1949 referred to the complaint petition) I respectfully submit that I have received the orders of District Magistrate Ganjam in his letter No. L Die. 1329/1951 dated 8-7 -1952 for the withdrawal of the case. I therefore pray that permission may be accorded and the case be withdrawn u/s 494 Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused persons mentioned in the complaint petition. Sd/- D.S. Rao C.S.I., Aska D /- 28-7-1952. Mr. Mohapatra in support of this revision petition urged that the letter of the District Magistrate (No. L. Die. 1329/1951 dated 8-7-1952) referred to in the petition of the Court Sub-Inspector did not authorise the Court Sub-Inspector to withdraw C.C. No. 10 of 1951 but an earlier case (Bodogodo P.S. Case No. 25/53 of 1949) and that due to the failure of the Court Sub-Inspector to read the previous papers carefully he misunderstood the order of the District Magistrate in consequence of which the Court also permitted the withdrawal of O.O. No. 10 of 1951. 2. It is necessary to briefly recapitulate certain facts connected with he aforesaid case. On 17-5-1949 the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Russelkonda passed an order u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure restraining the opposite party from entering on the land in dispute. It was alleged that this order was disobeyed by the members of the opposite party on 29-5-1949. Thereupon, an information was lodged at Bodogodo police station and case No. 26 of 1949 u/s 188 I.P.C. was registered there. That case was renumbered as G.R. 35 of 1949 in the Court of a Magistrate at Aska. It was alleged that this order was disobeyed by the members of the opposite party on 29-5-1949. Thereupon, an information was lodged at Bodogodo police station and case No. 26 of 1949 u/s 188 I.P.C. was registered there. That case was renumbered as G.R. 35 of 1949 in the Court of a Magistrate at Aska. During the trial of that case, however, it was brought to the notice of the trying Magistrate that the entire proceeding was invalid inasmuch as a complaint by a public servant required by Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure was absent. This omission was noticed on 13-6-1950 and then the trying Magistrate adjourned the case for several dates so as to enable the prosecution to make up its mind as to whether the case should be withdrawn or not. The District Superintendent of Police by his letter No. 1211(2)E. dated 29-1-1951 requested the District Magistrate to permit the withdrawal of the case on the ground that the case must, in any case, fail due to the absence of a proper complaint There was further correspondence between the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Police regarding that case and eventually after reading the D.O. No. 4770/V. dated the 26th June, 1952, the District Magistrate in his letter No. L. Die. 1829/51 dated 8-7.1952 directed the withdrawal of that case and some other cases with which we are not concerned. His order was follows: Sub: Courts Criminal Bodogodo P.S. Case 26 and 59 of 1949 and Pattapur P.S. Case No. 96/49 withdrawal orders. Ref.: Letter No. 1211(2) E. dated 29-1-51 the S.P. Ganjam Letter No. 4770/V. dated 26-6-52 of the S.P. Ganjam. The withdrawal of cases in Bodogodo P.S. case No. 26 and 53 of 1949, and Pattapur P.S. case No. 96/49 (under Section 188 I.P.C.) is allowed. Sd/- S.S. Hota For District Magistrate, Ganjam. 3. In the meantime, however, as early as the 3rd April, 1951 the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Russelkonda who had promulgated the original order u/s 144 Code of Criminal Procedure filed a proper complaint before the Magistrate at Asks for the prosecution of the opposite party for an offence u/s 188 I.P.C. On the hasis of his complaint a separate complaint case (No. C.C. 10 of 1951) was started and was pending in the Court of the Special 1st class Magistrate of Aska. When the complaint case was thus started on 3-4-1951 the Magistrate who was trying the police case (G.R. No. 35 of 1949) dropped it of his own accord on 21-4-1951 on the ground that there was no proper complaint as required by Section 195 Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Thus the net result was that a case which had been dropped by the trying Magistrate on 21-4-1951 was ordered by the District Magistrate on 8-7-195 to be withdrawn. The District Magistrate in his explanation to this Court has frankly admitted that when he passed the order for the withdrawal of Bodogodo P.S. case No. 26 of 1949 (G.R. No. 35 of 1949) he was not aware of the fact that case had bean dropped by the trying Magistrate long before and that another complaint case (C.C. No. 10 of 1951) on the same facts was pending in the Court of the Magistrate at Aska. The Court Sub-Inspector's petition for withdrawal contains a reference to the order of the District Magistrate. Apparently, he thought that the order of the District Magistrate though, in terms referring to Bodogodo P.S. case No. 26/49, would also apply to C.C. No. 10 of 195 in respect of the same facts and he, therefore, asked for the withdrawal of the latter case. 5. It is now Admitted by the District Magistrate that the Court Sub-Inspector had no authority withdraw C.C. No. to of 1951 on the basis of the District Magistrate's order contained in L. Dis. 1329/1951 dated 8-7-1952. It appears that by notification No, 12593-P dated the 19th December; 1938 of the Government of Orissa, every Court Sub-Inspector appointed to prosecute cases before Courts of Magistrates was appointed to be a Public Prosecutor generally for all such cases in such Courts. As public prosecutor he may be acting within his jurisdiction in filing a petition for withdrawal of a case u/s 494 Code of Criminal Procedure. Rule 285 of the Orissa Police Manual, however, lays down the following instructions for the guidance of Public Prosecutors in withdrawing cases u/s 494, Code of Criminal Procedure. 285. (a) Withdrawal from prosecution: The following instructions have been issued by the Legal, Remembrancer for the guidance of Public Prosecutors subordinate to him: No Public Prosecutor shall withdraw from the prosecution of any person u/s 494 Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he has obtained the permission of the District Magistrate. 285. (a) Withdrawal from prosecution: The following instructions have been issued by the Legal, Remembrancer for the guidance of Public Prosecutors subordinate to him: No Public Prosecutor shall withdraw from the prosecution of any person u/s 494 Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he has obtained the permission of the District Magistrate. Should there not be time to obtain the orders of the District Magistrate owing to his absence, the permission of the Magistrate in charge must be obtained. (b) The Superintendent should ordinarily be consulted when feasible by the District Magistrate or Magistrate in charge, before orders are passed on any such, reference. (c) These instructions apply also to police officers appearing as prosecutors in criminal courts, except that such officers will obtain their instructions from the superintendent, who should take the orders of the District Magistrate in important cases. 6. The main question for consideration now is whether, the order passed by the trying Magistrate u/s 494 Code of Criminal Procedure should be set aside. Doubtless, in view of the Government of Orissa notification mentioned above the Public Prosecutors (C.S.I's) authority to file a petition for withdrawal of C.C. No. 10 of 1951 cannot be questioned and similarly the Magistrate's action in allowing withdrawal on the hasis of that petition may quite legal. Rule 285 of the Orissa Police Manual which requires that the Court Sub-Inspector should obtain the instructions of the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate before applying for withdrawal of a case is primarily meant for his guidance and mere non-compliance with those provisions may not affect the jurisdiction of the Court Sub-Inspector as Public Prosecutor to apply for withdrawal of a case u/s 494 Code of Criminal Procedure in view of his having been appointed as a Public Prosecutor u/s 499(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. But as this is a criminal revision is Court could revise the order of the Magistrate on the ground of impropriety even though no illegality might have been committed. If the trying Magistrate had been aware of the fact that the District Magistrate has not given permission to the Court Sub-Inspector to withdraw C.C. No. 10 of 1951 it is not likely that he would have permitted the withdrawal of that case. It may be that the C.S.I. misunderstood the order of the District Magistrate. If the trying Magistrate had been aware of the fact that the District Magistrate has not given permission to the Court Sub-Inspector to withdraw C.C. No. 10 of 1951 it is not likely that he would have permitted the withdrawal of that case. It may be that the C.S.I. misunderstood the order of the District Magistrate. But when the facts are now before this Court and this Court is satisfied that the trial Court exercised, its discretion u/s 494 Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of an error committed by the C.S.I. in not carefully reading the instructions given to him by the District Magistrate I do not think that it will be proper to maintain the order acquitting the accused persons u/s 494 Code of Criminal Procedure Doubtless, this order will not, in any way preclude the authorities concerned from filing a fresh petition for withdrawal of C.C. No. 10 of 1951 if they are so advised and it Deed not in any way fetter the discretion of the trying Magistrate to permit the withdrawal of that case if on other grounds he considers that the withdrawal should be allowed. 7. I would, therefore, allow this revision petition, sell aside the order of the Special 1st class Magistrate dated 28-7-1952 and restore O.C. No. 10 of 1951 to the stage at which it was before he passed the order on that date. The case should be disposed of according to law. Final Result : Allowed