JUDGMENT 1. THIS Rule is against an order dated the 25th June, 1969 passed by A. K. Nandi, Sub-divisional Judicial magistrate, Chandernagore., Hooghly, issuing process under Sections 427/352 of the indian Penal Code against the accused nos. 3 to 12 in C. R. No. 304 of 1969. 2. THE facts leading on to the Rule are short and simple. A petition of complaint was filed by one Sanatan mullick on or about the 17th March, 1969 in the Court of the Sub-divisional judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore, alleging, inter alia, that the accused persons being armed with deadly weapons forming an unlawful assembly trespassed into his land, broke the fencing and took away crops and thus caused damage to him to the. extent of about Rs. 700/- and on his objection to the catching of the fish in his tank, the accused-persons attacked him and the accused Nos. 1 to 7 assaulted him while the accused No. 9 stood on his chest and the accused No. 12 was going to hit him with a katari. The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, examined the complainant on the same date and held that the complaint needed a local enquiry and in that view he directed that Sk. Akbar Ali Khan, Ex-Chairman, chandernagore Municipality will hold an enquiry and submit report by 7. 5. 69. On the 11th April, 1969 the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate sent the case to Mr. C. K. Ray chowdhury, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Chandernagore for enquiry and report. Thereafter on the 7th May, 1969 Sri A. K. Nandi, Sub-divisional judicial Magistrate Chandernagore went through the report that was submitted and agreeing therewith issued process under Sections 427/352 I. P. C. against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 only and dismissed the complaint so far as the other accused were concerned by his order of the same date. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred an application under section 435 Cr. P. C. before the learned sessions Judge at Hooghly praying for setting aside the order of dismissal so far as the accused Nos. 3 to 12 are concerned and praying for a further enquiry into the complaint. Ultimately on the 21st June, 1969, Sri N. C. Dutta, Sessions Judge, Hooghly, was pleased to allow the said revisional application, set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissing the complaint against accused Nos. 3 to 12 are concerned and praying for a further enquiry into the complaint. Ultimately on the 21st June, 1969, Sri N. C. Dutta, Sessions Judge, Hooghly, was pleased to allow the said revisional application, set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissing the complaint against accused Nos. 3 to 12 and remanded the case back to the court below for further enquiry into the complaint against the ten accused-persons who were discharged. On the 25th June, 1969 when the records came back to Sri A. K. Nandi, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, he passed the following order:"seen the order of learned Sessions Judge, Hooghly in connection with Cr. Motion No. 52 of 1969. It is well settled that when a superior court directs further enquiry process has got to be issued, (vide 1968 cr. L. J. 1257). Issue process also under section 427)352 I. P. C., against accused nos. 3-12. To 6-8-69". Mr. Mrityunjay Palit, Advocate (with Miss Anjali Chatterjee, Advocate) appearing in support of the Rule on behalf of the four. accused-petitioners has taken a short point for consideration. Mr. Palit has contended that the order that was passed on the 25th June, 1969 is an order which is clearly bad and improper and dehors Section 436 Cr. P. C. Mr. Palit submitted in this context that in view of the clear and categorical order passed by the learned sessions Judge, namely, that the case was remanded to the court below for further enquiry into the complaint against the other ten accused-persons, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial magistrate had materially erred in construing the order to mean a, clear-cut direction upon him to issue process without any re-consideration of the materials on the record on his own or without hoiding any enquiry, causing thereby a serious prejudice to the accused-persons concerned. Mr. Balai chandra Roy, Advocate (with Mr. Mihir Kumar Roy, Advocate) appearing on behalf of the complainant. Sana-tan Mullick, has opposed the Rule and has submitted that the objection taken by Mr. Palit to the order impugned is more technical than real and upon ultimate analysis, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate has no other option in carrying out the direction of the learned Sessions Judge but to issue process under section 427/352 I.P.C. against the accused persons concerned. Mr. Palit to the order impugned is more technical than real and upon ultimate analysis, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate has no other option in carrying out the direction of the learned Sessions Judge but to issue process under section 427/352 I.P.C. against the accused persons concerned. Mr. Roy further submitted that at this stage there was no scope for further enquiry and the order that was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is a reasonable order which this court may not be pleased to interfere with in revision. Mr. Jahar Lal roy, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the Rule and submitted that there was no scope for any further enquiry by the learned sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate in view of the order passed by the learned sessions Judge on the 21st June, 1969 setting aside the previous order of dismissal with regard to the accused persons. Mr. Roy further submitted that a judicial enquiry had already been held and there was no scope for holding a fresh one at this stage and the order of the learned Sessions Judge has been properly interpreted by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate in issuing straightaway process against the accused persons. In this context mr. Roy relied on a Patna case refer red to in the impugned order, namely, the case of (1) Abu-Bakkar petitioner v. Balal Sheikh, opposite party, reported in 1968 Cr. L. J. 1257, wherein C. N. Prasad, J. was pleased to hold that the order of superior court to hold further enquiry into a complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203. Cr. P. C. has a technical meaning. It simply means reconsideration, but what more step has to be taken thereafter depends on the circumstances of each case. The learned judge observed further that in a case where the complaint has been dismissed after a full enquiry, such order can only be complied with by issuing process against the persons complained against. Mr. Eoy relies upon the said observation in support of his contention that there was no scope left to the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate to hold any further enquiry or to have a reconsideration of his own. 3. HAVING heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and on going through the materials on the record, I hold that there is a considerable force behind the submissions of Mr. Palit. 3. HAVING heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and on going through the materials on the record, I hold that there is a considerable force behind the submissions of Mr. Palit. It is abundantly clear from the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge that he clearly and categorically directed a further enquiry into the complaint against the accused-persons as referred to in the said order and some meaning and effect must be given to the expression "further enquiry". ('enquiry' has been denned under Section 4 (1) (k)Cr. P. C. as-follows: "enquiry inquiry' includes every enquiry other than a trial conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court" : The point at issue is what is meant by further enquiry. It may be observed that an order for further enquiry does not necessarily make it obligatory to proceed once again under Section 202 Cr. P. C. but further enquiry include additional investigation of facts and where no additional evidence is forthcoming it stands for a re-hearing or reconsideration of the same materials. Some meaning and effect must be given to the said words as used by the legislature otherwise the interpretation would be bad on the ground of repugnancy. Even in the Patna Case referred to by Mr. Jaharlal Roy it has been observed by g. N. Prasad J. that the order by a superior court to hold further enquiry into a complaint which has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr. P. C. has a technical meaning and it simply means re-consideration. With great respect to the learned Judge, I would hold that the answer to the point at issue is simple enough and has been aptly stated by him to be reconsideration. A further enquiry may not be broad based upon an additional enquiry or a fresh enquiry but the court to which the case has been remanded for such a further enquiry, must apply his mind and reconsider the same materials, even though no fresh evidence is forthcoming. In this context a reference may be made to a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, namely, in the matter of (2) Haridass Sanyal and others v. Saritulla reported in ILR 15 cal. In this context a reference may be made to a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court, namely, in the matter of (2) Haridass Sanyal and others v. Saritulla reported in ILR 15 cal. 608, wherein Sri W. Comer Petheram, kt, C. J. delivering the judgment of the Full Bench observed inter alia, that a further enquiry is not restricted to the mere taking of evidence but includes additional investigation of facts and where no additional evidence is forthcoming, it means a re-hearing or reconsideration of the same materials. I respectfully agree with the said observation and I would hold that the interpretation given to the said words by the Full Bench gives the logical effect to the intention of the legislature as incorporated in Section 436 Cr. P. C. Anything short of that would be long off the mark. 4. THE learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, it appears straight away proceeded to issue process under Section 427)352 IPC against the accused persons and he forgot that he was neither a post office nor an automation and the discretion to be exercised in the matter by way of re-consideration was not shut out by the direction of the learned Sessions Judge or by the provisions of the statute. A failure on the part of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate to have taken the same into consideration has resulted not only in a non-conformance to the mandatory provisions of the law but has also resulted in a failure of justice. I make no observations as to the merits and it is left entirely to the discretion of the learned Judicial Magistrate, who will dispose of the matter but I must hold that the learned Magistrate must act within the bounds of Section 436 Cr. P. C. and reconsider the matter by applying his mind to the materials on the record and thereby conform to the direction passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In the result, I make the Rule absolute, set aside the impugned order dated the 25th June, 1969 passed by Sri a. K. Nandi, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, chandernagore, District Hooghly in C. R. No. 304 of 1969 issuing process under sections 427/352 IPC against the accused persons; and I direct that the case shall go back to the court below for being disposed of in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 5. 5. THE records are to go down as early as possible.