Judgment :- 1. This is directed against the order passed by the District Magistrate at Palghat, discharging accused 3 and 4 in a case against them and four others, under S.148, 352 and 379 I. P, C. The complaint of the revision-petitioner before me is, that all his evidence had not been taken. In the complaint, he had mentioned the names of seven witnesses excluding the petitioner, of whom, three witnesses and the petitioner alone, were examined on the 7th March, 1959; then the case was adjourned to the 14th March, 1959 for questioning the accused, without examining the other witnesses. This is plainly illegal, and is opposed to the provisions of S.253 (1), Crl. P. C. This provision has received judicial interpretation in lype Punnoose v. Thoma Thommi, A. I. R.1954 T. C. 121. I therefore hold, that the order of discharge passed by the learned District Magistrate has to be quashed. Accordingly, the case is sent back for being proceeded with in accordance with law. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Allowed.