JUDGMENT S. D. Khare, J. - This is an application in revision against an order dated August 18, 1962, passed by the Judicial City Magistrate it, Allahabad, discharging the accused opposite parties of an offence under Section 122 of the Indian Railways Act. An application in revision filed in the court of session was rejected. 2. The case against the porters was started on a report dated April 7, 1963, by the Station Officer, G. R. P., to the Railway Magistrate, Allahabad. The report of the Station Officer was based on the report dated April 3, 1.862, from the Station Superintendent, Tickets, Northern Railway, Allahabad. All that was mentioned in the two reports was that the five porters (opposite parties Nos. 2 to 6) were plying their business on the station platform regardless of the fact that they had been suspended and, therefore, they had committed unlawful entry on the platform and an offence under Section 122 of the Indian Railways Act. The dates on which the aforesaid porters had committed unlawful entry on the platform and also the time of such unlawful entry were net mentioned in the reports. The case was transferred from the court of the Railway Magistrate to that of the Judicial City Magistrate II, Allahabad. It was taken up on August 9, 1962, on which date it was discovered that copies of the necessary documents had not till then been given to the accused persons. The case was, therefore, adjourned to August 18, 1962, on which date the accused persons were present but the complainant did not appear. The A.P.P., G.R.P. was present but he said that the police had nothing to do with the case. The District A.P.P. also informed the Magistrate that he was not concerned with the case. The Magistrate, therefore, considered the two reports which were on the file and observed as follows:- "These two if treated as complaint are of different dates. They do not disclose on what dates and time the offence had been committed. It is also not clear who had seen the occurrence. It is not clear from the record whether any offence had been committed by . the accused. Thus these accused are discharged. The tokens are returned to them." 3. They do not disclose on what dates and time the offence had been committed. It is also not clear who had seen the occurrence. It is not clear from the record whether any offence had been committed by . the accused. Thus these accused are discharged. The tokens are returned to them." 3. It has been contended by Sri R. C. Ghatak, learned counsel for the applicant, that the order passed by the Magistrate was erroneous inasmuch as (a) no notice of the date fixed had been given to the parties concerned, and (b) the procedure which ought to have been adopted was of summon cases under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of Sections 242 and 243, Cr.P.C. had not been complied with. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that an offence punishable under Section 122 of the Indian Railways Act is a cognizable offence is well-founded. "Cognizable offence" means an offence for which a police officer may arrest without warrant. The provisions of Section 132 of the Indian Railways Act make it clear that a police officer may arrest without warrant a person who might have .committed an offence under Section 122 of the Indian Railways Act. However, this contention hardly helps the applicant because the maximum punishment provided for an offence punishable under Section 122 of the Indian Railways Act is Rs. 50/- fine, and, therefore, the offence can be tried only as a summons case by a Magistrate under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Sections 241 to 250 find place .in Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 242, Cr.P.C. provides that when the accused is brought before the Magistrate the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall, be stated to him and he shall be asked if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. Section 243 provides that if the accused admits that he has committed the offence of which he is accused, his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him, and if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted the Magistrate may convict him accordingly. 6. Section 243 provides that if the accused admits that he has committed the offence of which he is accused, his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him, and if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted the Magistrate may convict him accordingly. 6. From a perusal of the order passed by the learned Magistrate it is clear that he found it difficult to comply with the provisions of Sections 242 and 243 Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that the particulars of the offence had not been stated in the complaint. It was impossible for the Magistrate to state the particulars of the offence to the accused persons when the same had not been mentioned in the complaint. In the circumstances it was impossible for the Magistrate to proceed any further with the case and he was bound to release the accused. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the case had been dismissed under Section 247, Cr. P.C. for non-appearance of the complainant is not well-founded. Section 247, Cr.P.C. could have no application to the facts of the present case because the case against the porters had been instituted otherwise than upon a private complaint. The case was, therefore, to be, governed by the provisions of Section 249, Cr.P.C. which reads as follows :- "In any case instituted otherwise than upon a complaint a Presidency Magistrate, a Magistrate of the first class or with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate any other Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment either of acquittal or of conviction and may thereupon release the accused." 8. In the present case also the Magistrate has discharged the accused persons without pronouncing any judgment either of acquittal or of conviction. No illegality appears to have been committed. 9. There is no force in this revision application. It is dismissed.