Judgment :- This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Magistrate (J) of Tirunelveli, in Crl.R.P. 7 of 1973 on his file, setting aside the order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shencottah, dismissing the complaint under S. 203 Criminal P.C., filed by the respondent complainant in C.C. No. 16 of 1973, against the petitioners for an offence under Sections 494 and 109. I.P.C., read with Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act, on the allegation that the complainant is the lawfully wedded wife of accused 1 (first petitioner herein) and that while the said marriage between them is still subsisting, he married one Piramayee as his second wife and then he (accused 1) married accused 2 (second petitioner) about 1 1/2 years ago, as his third wife on the 12th of Ani, at 10 a.m. at Courtallam and that accused 3 to 11 abetted the commission of the said offence of bigami. 2. The learned District Magistrate, on setting aside the order of dismissal. passed an order remanding the case to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Kovilpatti, for further enquiry and disposal according to law. The petitioners herein who were arrayed as accused in the complaint, now challenge the order of the learned District Magistrate on the main ground that the lower Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, ought to have given notice to the accused and heard them before passing the final order. as the impugned order has adversely affected them. The other ground viz., that the complaint is filed after a delay of 1 1/2 years and that the reasons given by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shencottah, have not been discussed, is no pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this revision petition. So, the only question before me is whether a notice should be given to the proposed accused in a proceeding on revision under Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. So, the only question before me is whether a notice should be given to the proposed accused in a proceeding on revision under Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. In view of the observations made by the Full Bench of our High Court in Appa Rao v. Janki Ammal, 1927 AIR(Mad) 19 at 21 = ILR 49 Mad 918 = 1927 (28) CrLJ 129 (FB), followed in Thanikachala Mudali v. Ponnappa Mudali, 1947 AIR(Mad) 389 = 1947 Mad WN (Cr) 98, it cannot be said that the order of the District Magistrate setting aside the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissing the complaint under S. 203, Criminal P.C. without issuing a notice to the petitioners herein, is vitiated. 4. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed.