V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants who were charged under sections 147 447 426 and 506 Indian Penal Code were discharged by the learned Magistrate. In revision the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge and passed an order under sec. 436 Cri. P. Code directing further inquiry. ( 2 ) IN revision it is contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in doing so. It is also urged that it is not competent to order an inquiry in a case in which a trial had already been commenced. I reject both these contentions for the following reasons. ( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has observed that the learned Magistrate has not discussed the evidence in a proper manner and rejected it after a superficial discussion. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to three reasons on which the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate was based. The learned Sessions Judge has given detailed reasons for observing that these reasons are superficial. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that the learned Magistrate had not considered a part of the evidence. For these reasons the learned Sessions Judge observed that the order of the learned Magistrate was based on flimsy and superficial considerations and is manifestly unreasonable perverse and absurd. After going through para 7 of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge I am not prepared to say that there was no justification for these observations made by the learned Sessions Judge. There was prosecution evidence that a hedge was cut that a gate was broken and that a neem tree was also cut and that the total damage caused to the complainant was to the extent of Rs. 500. 00. Such acts cannot if proved be said to be bonafide acts done in the bonafide exercise of a right of way. I am therefore not prepared to set aside in revision the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 4 ) IT is next contended that in a case under sec. 251a Cri. Pro. Code the trial commences as soon as the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate and that the order of discharge is an order passed in the course of a trial as provided in sec. 251a of the Cri. Pro. Code and that therefore the Sessions Judge was wrong in directing a further inquiry. 251a Cri. Pro. Code the trial commences as soon as the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate and that the order of discharge is an order passed in the course of a trial as provided in sec. 251a of the Cri. Pro. Code and that therefore the Sessions Judge was wrong in directing a further inquiry. Sec. 436 Cri. Pro. Code in terms allows a Sessions Judge to direct further inquiry into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. In this case the accused has been discharged under sec. 251a Cri. Pro. Code. It is true that in sec. 251a the words at the commencement of the trial are used. In sec. 4 (k) Cri. Pro. Code inquiry has been defined as to include every inquiry other than a trial conducted under Cri Pro. Code by a Magistrate or Court. It is provided in sec. 4 (1) of Cri. Pro. Code as follows :- -IN this Code the following words and expressions have the following meanings unless a different intention appears from the subject or context :- -. . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 ) BUT ordinarily a trial is supposed to commence after a charge is framed and therefore the proceedings before framing the charge are to be taken as an inquiry. In section 251a this distinction has not been adopted ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant has relied on R. Govindaswamy v. State A. I. R. . 1960 Andhra Pradesh 391 where it was observed at p. 394 as follows :- -THERE appears no reason why effect should not be given to the plain meaning of the expression at the commencement of the trial used in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 251a. Therefore tee contention on behalf of the petitioner that as the trial has already commenced there is no scope for an inquiry and that a Sessions Judge has no power to interfere in cases of discharge under sec. 251a (2) is well founded. If a Sessions Judge acting under sec. 435 finds in such cases that a trial should be conducted on charges in respect of which there was a is charge the only course available to him is to report the matter under sec. 438 for the orders of the High Court. 251a (2) is well founded. If a Sessions Judge acting under sec. 435 finds in such cases that a trial should be conducted on charges in respect of which there was a is charge the only course available to him is to report the matter under sec. 438 for the orders of the High Court. It follow that the order in question of the Sessions Judge has to be set aside. ( 7 ) BUT with great respect I find it difficult to agree. The expression at the commencement of the trial used in sec. 251a Cri. Pro. Code does not cut down the scope of sec. 436 Cri. Pro. Code which allows a Sessions Judge to directed further inquiry into the case of any person accused of an offence who has been discharged. The word trial has not been defined in the Cri. Pro. Code. It may yave one meaning under s c. 403 and another meaning undnr sec. 251a Criminal Procedure Code. In any case the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is clearly proper in view of the wording of sec. 436 Cri. Pro. Code. Even if the High Court has to pass an order in such cases the High Court will have to pass an order in terms of section 436 Cri. Pro. Code and order further inquiry. ( 8 ) THE revision application is therefore dismissed. Application dismissed. .