This is a reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura under section 395 (2), Cr. P. C. for a decision of the High Court on a question of law, namely, whether the Additi­onal Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to decide the criminal re­vision which was pending before him against an order of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sabroom passed on 7.12.1983 in G.R. Case No. 129 of 1982 discharging the respondents for non-appearance of the informant and the witnesses. The order is, according to the Additional Sessions Judge, an order of acqui­tted and not of discharge. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The lear­ned Magistrate, on 22.8.83 framed a charge under section 394, IPC against the respondents. The respondents pleaded not gui­lty. The case is triable under Chapter XIX, Cr. P. C. and is also a case instituted on a police report. Therefore 14.9.83, was fixed for examination of witnesses under section 242, Cr. P.C. On 14.9.83 the informant, Officer in-charge of Sabroom P.S. Sri Chakma, was not present but three other witnesses were present. The Learned Magistrate adjourned the case on the ground that the informant was not present and ordered the three witnesses who were present to execute a P. R. Bond of Rs. 50/-each for secur­ing their attendance on the next date fixed. Thereafter, 4.10.83, 7.11.83, 25.11.83 and 7.12.83 were fixed for examination of the witnesses. However, no witness could be examined on those dates as no witness was present. On 7.12.83 the learned Magistrate dropped the case and discharged the respondents for non-ap­pearance of the informant and the witnesses. Against the afore­said order dated 7.12.83, the State filed the Criminal Motion case No. 15 (2)/84. After hearing the parties, the reference has been made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 3. There is no provision in Chapter XIX, C. P. C. for acquitting the accused on the ground that the prosecution has not produced its witnesses in a trial of warrant case instituted on a police report. However, provisions have been made in section 242 (2), C. P.C. for summons to be issued to the witnesses on the application of prosecution. The Magistrate has lay the power to summon material witnesses under section 311, Cr.P.C. Section 350. Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to punish a witness for his non-attendance in disobedience to the summon issued to the witness. However, provisions have been made in section 242 (2), C. P.C. for summons to be issued to the witnesses on the application of prosecution. The Magistrate has lay the power to summon material witnesses under section 311, Cr.P.C. Section 350. Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to punish a witness for his non-attendance in disobedience to the summon issued to the witness. In view of the discussions above, an order of acquittal can be passed after the trial. In the instant case, there was no trial. As such, the impugned order is not an order of acquittal. There is also no provision in Cr. P.C. to discharge an accused after a charge has been framed against him. In the instant case, a charge under section 394, IPC was framed against the respondents. Therefore the passing of the impugned order of discharge of the respon­dents and the closing of the case is not contemplated by Cr. P.C. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the impugned order is illegal and void. This view finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Ratilal Bhanji vs. State of Maharaitra AIR 1919 SC 94; "Assuming argu-endo, the Magistrate's order of discharge was an order of 'acquittal' then also, it does not alter the fact that this 'acquittal' was manifestly illegal. It was not passed on merits, but without any trial, with consequ­ent failure of justice. The High Court has undoubtedly the power to interfere with such a patently illegal order of acquittal in the exercise or its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 and direct a retrial. The High Court's order under appeal, directing the Magistrate to take die-off proceedings against the accused was not barred by the provisions of Section 403, (of the Code of 1898), the earlier proceedings taken by the Magistrate being no trial at all and the order passed therein being neither a valid 'discharge' of the accused, nor their acquittal as contemplated by Section 405(1)." (emphasis added) In view of the discussions above, the impugned order is neither an order of acquittal nor an order of discharge. It is a simple illegal and void order. 4. The mistake of the learned Magistrate amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and causes injustice. It is a simple illegal and void order. 4. The mistake of the learned Magistrate amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and causes injustice. In order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice and to avoid further delay in the disposal of the case, I am inclined to exercise my power under section 482, Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, I quash the order of the learned Magist­rate dated 7.12.83 dropping the proceedings and discharging the respondents and the case is remanded to the learned Magistrate for retrial of the case in accordance with law. 6. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the le­arned Additional Sessions Judge, South Tripura for his necessary action.