Judgment Kamla Sahai, J. 1. By an order dated the 8th February, 1965, the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur has allowed an appeal against an order of the Subdivisional Magistrate of Bhagalpur dated the 6th July, 1964; has set aside that order and has directed a complaint to be filed against the petitioners for their prosecution under Sec.188 of the Penal Code. This application is directed against that order. 2. Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners, has argued that the District Magistrate could not entertain an appeal against the Subdivisional Magistrates order and, therefore, his entire order is illegal. It is necessary to consider this point. 3. I may now give the important facts of the case On the 4th November, 1963, a proceeding under Sec.144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn up. prohibiting the parties from going over plot No. 154 of khata No. 65 of village Bhuria. The order was served upon the parties On the 21st November, 1963, the first party filed a petition before the Subdivisional Magistrate. Their prayer in that petition was to take action under Sec.188 of the Penal Code against the petitioners on the ground that they had constructed a wall on the disputed land, after service of the order under Sec.144 upon them. The Subdivisional Magistrate sent the matter for inquiry to a Magistrate named Mr. B. B. Chand. The Inquiring Officer submitted a report dated the 12th January, 1964, saving that a prima facie case for prosecution of the petitioners under Sec.188 of the Penal Code had been made out. The petitioners filed a show cause petition in which their case mainly was that the wall in question stood upon the land from before the date on which the order was served upon them. On the 8th July, 1964, the Sub-divisional Magistrate accepted the show cause of the petitioners and discharged them. In other words, he refused to file a complaint against them. The first party then filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, who, as I have already mentioned, allowed the appeal. 4. It is manifest that the learned District Magistrate did not look into the provisions of the Code, in order to find out whether he had the authority to entertain an appeal in this case. The first party then filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, who, as I have already mentioned, allowed the appeal. 4. It is manifest that the learned District Magistrate did not look into the provisions of the Code, in order to find out whether he had the authority to entertain an appeal in this case. If he had done so, he would have come to the conclusion that no appeal before him was maintainable and he would then have been able to save the time which he must have spent over hearing the parties and passing the impugned order 5. Sec.195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences punishable under various sections. Those sections have been grouped in three Clauses (a), (b) and (c). In the case of offences punishable under the sections listed in Clause (a), a complaint is to be filed by the public servant concerned, or a public servant to whom he is subordinate. In the case of offences punishable under those sections which are listed in Clauses (b) and (c), a complaint is to he filed by the Court concerned, or a Court to which that Court is subordinate This is one broad distinction between the offences mentioned in Clause (a) on one side and those mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) on the other 6. Another distinction is that the procedure for filing complaints in connection with offences punishable under the sections mentioned in Clauses (b) and (c) has been given in Sections 476. 476-A and 476-B. A perusal of those sections makes it perfectly clear that they do not apply to cases covered by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.195. In cases covered by Sec. 476 or 476-A, there is a right of appeal in both cases, namely, a case in which a complaint is filed by a Court and also a case in which a complaint is refused to be filed 7. On the other hand, no particular procedure has been provided of filing a complaint in cases covered under Clause (a) of Sec.195 (1). Sub-section (6) is the only provision which gives a right of appeal in connection with cases covered by Clause (a). On the other hand, no particular procedure has been provided of filing a complaint in cases covered under Clause (a) of Sec.195 (1). Sub-section (6) is the only provision which gives a right of appeal in connection with cases covered by Clause (a). That sub-section lays down that it is only when a public servant flies a complaint under Sub-section (1), Clause (a) that "any authority to which such public servant is subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint". This shows that a right of appeal exists and it can be filed before a public servant only if another public servant subordinate to him flies a complaint for any of the offences punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the Penal Code, which are referred to in the clause. There is no provision of an appeal against an order of a public servant, refusing to file a complaint. In the instant case, the Sub-divisional Magistrate refused to file a complaint. No appeal against that order could, therefore, be entertained by the District Magistrate. He had, therefore, no jurisdiction to set aside the Sub-divisional Magistrates order and to direct a complaint to be filed against the petitioners. 8. For the reasons given above, this application is allowed and the impugned order of the District Magistrate is set aside.