JUDGMENT 1. - This application under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has arisen in the following circumstances. 2. A sample of Ghee was taken on June 30, 1965 from the shop of the applicant Madanlal by Food Inspector Shri Mangilal. Upon analysis, the sample was found adulterated by reason of its containing foreign fat. On December 26,1966, a complaint was filed in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bundi for prosecution of the applicant Madan Lal under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The Magistrate framed the charges. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tired. He wanted to cross examine the complainant under section 256 Code of Criminal Procedure. The court fixed November 16, 1969 for the purpose. The case continued to adjourn. On April 6, 1971, the complainant did not appear, nor did the prosecution inspector. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint, and acquitted the accused. The Prosecuting Sub-Inspector then presented a fresh complaint on July 21, 1971. An objection was raised against the subsequent complaint. The learned Magistrate however overruled the objection on May 18, 1974. The revision was filed against this order is the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi which was dismissed by him on November 4, 1974. Hence this application. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the accused was acquitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and therefore, no fresh complaint can be filed against him. The order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is clearly in violation of section 403, Code of Criminal Procedure. The order amounts to abuse of process of court. The accused is facing trial since 1966 and this court therefore, should step into exercise its inherent jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of process of court. 4. On the other hand, it was submitted that the party having lost the revision was prevented from making a second revision and was not entitled to invoke the inherent powers to circumvent the bar against the second revision. 5. I have considered over the matter. The order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint is not covered by section 259 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no other provision under which a person accused of a warrant case can be acquitted or discharged in the absence of the complainant. 5. I have considered over the matter. The order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint is not covered by section 259 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no other provision under which a person accused of a warrant case can be acquitted or discharged in the absence of the complainant. At best, 253 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, where under Magistrate can discharge the accused if he considers the charge to be groundless or reasons to be recorded by him. The order recording acquittal can be interpreted as an order of discharge. The question, therefore, is whether the Magistrate dismissed the complaint for want of grounds for the charge. The Magistrate has not recorded that the charge was groundless. Therefore, his order was clearly untenable, and a fresh complaint can be filed. There is no abuse of process involved in the matter. Section 403, Code of Criminal Procedure (old) is not applicable because it does not apply to a dismissal of a complaint and an order of discharge. 6. I, therefore find no force in this application, and it is hereby dismissed.Application dismissed. *******