Judgment :- 1. The only question that is argued in this revision petition is as to the legality of the order of the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, quashing the conviction of the petitioner and directing retrial from the stage at which the procedure adopted by the lower court was held to be defective. 2. The petitioner was convicted under S.294 (b), I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- by the Second Class Magistrate, Ernakulam. On appeal it was contended that the accused was prejudiced because he was not personally questioned under S.342, Crl. P.C, but only the accused's counsel was questioned; and also that the accused was not given an opportunity to adduce defence evidence. The learned District Magistrate held that this has caused prejudice to the accused and therefore the conviction and sentence were set aside and the Magistrate was directed to question the accused personally on the evidence and circumstances appearing against him and to permit him to examine defence witnesses. 3. It is argued by the defence counsel that after quashing the conviction the learned District Magistrate ought to have directed a retrial of the entire case and that the court has no power to order what has been described as a 'partial retrial'. 4. S.423 (1) (b), Crl. P. C. says that the court may "in an appeal from a conviction, reverse the finding and sentence, and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be retried by a court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or order his commitment for trial." The words in S.423, Crl. P.C., I think, are sufficiently wide to authorise a retrial from the point at which the error or illegality in the trial has been committed. Support for this position can be had from the decisions in Motan Khan v. Emperor (AIR. 1927 Sind 175) and Virumal Seoomal v. Emperor (AIR. 1941 Sind 144). 5. In Emperor v. Nathu Kasturchand Marwadi (ILR. 50 Bom. 42) where the Magistrate had failed to comply with the provisions of S.342, Crl. P.C. though no retrial was ordered, in that case Macleod, C.J., was of the opinion that a retrial could have been ordered from the stage at which the error in the trial had been committed. 6. Reference may also be made to the case in Dibakanta Chatterjee v. Gour Gopal Mukherjee (ILR. 50 Cal. P.C. though no retrial was ordered, in that case Macleod, C.J., was of the opinion that a retrial could have been ordered from the stage at which the error in the trial had been committed. 6. Reference may also be made to the case in Dibakanta Chatterjee v. Gour Gopal Mukherjee (ILR. 50 Cal. 939) where because of the failure to comply with the provisions of S.342, Crl. P. C. a retrial from the point at which the error had been committed was ordered by the court. 7. I am in respectful agreement with this view. The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice a decision in Ramachandra Prasad v. Emperor (AIR. 1937 Pat. 246) where it was held that a partial retrial cannot be directed by the appellate court. Relying on an earlier decision of the same court in Gajanand Thakur v. Emperor (AIR. 1916 Pat. 219) I find myself unable to subscribe to this view. No other point is pressed in this petition. The revision petition is dismissed. Dismissed.