Judgment 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate dated the 28th April 1966. By that order, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of a case under Sec. 436 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and transferred the case to a first case Munsif. Magistrate/C for the purpose of holding an enquiry under Chapter 18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It appears that the opposite party lodged a first information report in respect of an occurrence of arson on the 28rd September 1964. The police investigated into the case and submitted a report to the effect that the allegations of the informant were maliciously false. Against the police report, a protest petition was filed by the complainant and, accordingly an enquiry was ordered to be held under Sec.202 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure by a Magistrate named Mr. B. G. Bagchi. Mr. Bagchi also reported the case to be maliciously false, and upon a consideration of his report, the Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the 20th February 1965. The complainant, thereupon, went up in revision to the Court of Session, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his order dated the 28th January 1966, set aside the dismissal of the complaint and directed further enquiry into the same. 3. On receipt of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, the Sub-divisional Magistrate recorded an order on the 14th February 1966, directing a Magistrate, Mr. D. Chandra, to make enquiry into the complaint and to submit a report. Before Mr. Chandra, the complainant filed a petition stating that he had already examined his witnesses in course of the enquiry by Mr. Bagchi and that he did not intend to examine any more witness in support of his case, and he prayed that Mr. Chandra should hold the enquiry with reference to the evidence which the complainant had already adduced before Mr. Bagchi. Thereupon, Mr. Chandra submitted a report saying that a prima facie case had already been made out, as disclosed by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. It was on receipt of this report of Mr. Chandra that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order on the 28th April 1966. 4. Mr. Bagchi. Thereupon, Mr. Chandra submitted a report saying that a prima facie case had already been made out, as disclosed by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. It was on receipt of this report of Mr. Chandra that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order on the 28th April 1966. 4. Mr. Ghosal has put forward the contention that the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate is misconceived inasmuch as he had already made a direction for further enquiry, after the receipt of the Sessions Courts order, on the 14th February 1966 and, therefore, it was necessary that Mr. Chandra should have been directed to hold a further enquiry instead of merely relying upon the observations of the Sessions Court with respect to the evidence adduced by the complainant in course of Mr. Bagchis enquiry. Mr. Ghosal has relied upon a number of cases in support of his contention, namely, Udit Narayan Patwari V/s. Emperor, AIR 1938 Pat 369, Brijnath Sahai V/s. Babulal, 1956 Pat L R 215 : (1957) Cri L J 290), Annakali Debi V/s. Gyanendra Chakravarty, AIR 1938 Cal 22, Haroon Abdulla Kachchi V/s. Gajadhar Sukhdeo Marwadi, AIR 1940 Nag 128 and Emperor V/s. Maung Ba Thon, AIR 1931 Rang 225 (FB). 5. I do not consider it necessary to discuss the decisions at length, because, so far as this court is concerned, the legal position is well settled, as pointed out by Muhammad Noor, J. in Udit Narayan Patwaris case, AIR 1938 Pat 369 that the order by a superior court to hold further enquiry into a complaint which has been dismissed under S. 203 of the Code Criminal Procedure has acquired a technical meaning. It simply means reconsideration; but what more step has to be taken thereafter depends on the circumstances of each case. For example, if further enquiry has been directed into a complaint which was dismissed soon after the examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation, the order for further enquiry can be carried out by examining the witnesses whom the complainant has cited in support of his case. There may, however, be a case where the complaint has been dismissed after a full enquiry. This Court has held that, in such an event, the order of the superior court for holding further enquiry cm only be complied with by issuing processes against the persons complained against. There may, however, be a case where the complaint has been dismissed after a full enquiry. This Court has held that, in such an event, the order of the superior court for holding further enquiry cm only be complied with by issuing processes against the persons complained against. In the present case, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, when he passed his order on the 14th February 1966, was not aware as to whether there had already been a full enquiry in the case or not and whether the complainant desired to adduce any fresh evidence in support of his case. That was the reason why he directed a further enquiry to be held by Mr. Chandra; but, when it became clear from the report of Mr. Chandra that the complainant did not desire to adduce any fresh evidence in support of his case before the enquiring Magistrate, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate was convinced that there had already been a complete enquiry into the case and no further enquiry was needed. Even after the report of Mr. Chandra, it could have been open to the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate to get further enquiry made if he thought fit; but he was not bound to follow that course when he felt satisfied that a complete enquiry had already been held. At that stage, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate could only have carried out the direction of the Sessions Court by taking cognizance in the case and passing the necessary orders in respect of further proceeding in the matter. 6. The case was one involving an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session. Therefore, it was appropriate that the learned sub-divisional Magistrate should have directed that an enquiry should be held as contemplated under Chap. 18 of the Criminal P. C. It is, no doubt, clear that, merely because a prima facie case was supposed to have been made out to enable the Sub-divisional Magistrate to take cognizance of the case, it would not necessarily follow that a prima facie case had been made out for committing the accused person to the Court of Session for trial. The duty of the enquiring Magistrate under Chap. 18 of the Code is not the same as the duty of the Sub-divisional Magistrate to take cognizance of a case upon a complaint. The duty of the enquiring Magistrate under Chap. 18 of the Code is not the same as the duty of the Sub-divisional Magistrate to take cognizance of a case upon a complaint. A prima facie case had been made out in this case in order to enable the Sub-divisional Magistrate to take cognizance of it and to issue processes against the persons complained against. That does not relieve the Magistrate from holding an enquiry under Chap. 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code for deciding whether there are materials on the record to warrant a committal of the accused to the Court of Session for trial. The Magistrate holding the enquiry under Chap. 18 cannot mechanically commit an accused to the Court of Session for trial merely because the Sub-divisional Magistrate thought that a prima facie case had been made out for taking cognizance of it. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate. The application is, accordingly dismissed.