Short Note : 1. A complaint under section 41 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act was filed against the applicants in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jhabua which was registered as Criminal Case No. 353 of 1976. In this case charges under sections 41 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act were framed and the case was fixed for evidence on the 12th January 1977. On that date an application was made on behalf of the prosecution for charges being framed under sections 468 and 484 of the Indian Penal Code also in addition to the charges referred to above. This application was rejected by the learned trial Magistrate. Against the order rejecting this application, a revision application was filed before the Sessions judge and the learned Addl Sessions Judge, Jhabua who heard this application, set aside the order and directed the learned trial Magistrate to from the charges under the Indian Penal Code as prayed by the prosecution. It is this order which is challenged in this revision application. Held: It is evident from the impugned order as also from the facts mentioned above that the prosecution desired the learned trial Magistrate also to frame charges under sections 468 and 484 of the Indian Penal Code but the learned trial Magistrate refused to do so. In other words, when the learned trial Magistrate refused to charge the accused additionally under sections 468 and 484 of the Indian Penal Code, his order virtually amounted to the discharge of the accused from these charges Such an order could be revised by the Sessions Judge only under section 398 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. In accordance with the aforesaid provisions all that the learned Session judge would do was to direct a further inquiry into the case of the accused who had impliedly been discharged from the charges under section 468 and 484 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid section did not and could not authorise a learned Additional Sessions Judge to direct the trial Magistrate to frame specific charges under any specific provisions of law, viz. the Indian Penal Code in this case. If there was no such power, then certainly the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in clear contravention of the aforesaid provision of section 398 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 3. the Indian Penal Code in this case. If there was no such power, then certainly the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in clear contravention of the aforesaid provision of section 398 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 3. In the light of the view that I have taken above, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is modified. The case shall now go back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhabua for a further inquiry as contemplated by section 398 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After holding a further inquiry, the learned trial Magistrate shall be free after hearing both the parties, to pass such orders as the merits of the case require. With this modification the impugned order is set aside. Revision allowed.