JUDGMENT Khastgir, J. 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the issuance of the process and also the order dated the 12th January, 1987 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharge under s.245 sub section (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code had preferred this application under S.401/482 of the Criminal Procedure Code On the 12th December, 1984 the complainant was present in Court and was examined. No other witness was present. After perusing the petition of complaint and the recorded evidence the learned Magistrate was of the view that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused person under S.420 of the Indian Penal Code. However, on the 12th January, 1985 inasmuch as the complainant was absent on calls without tadbir and as the complainant was absent on repeated calls and inasmuch as the offence under s.420 of the Indian Penal Code being a compoundable one, the learned Magistrate under s.249 of the Criminal Procedure Code discharged all the accused person Thereafter, an application was made on the 13th February, 1985 by the complainant for revival of the case and after hearing the learned lawyer of the complaint the case was revived to the original file and necessary summons were issued upon the accused person. 2. The petitioner contended that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in passing such order by reviving the case and by issuing fresh process against the petitioner, when by his final order dated the 12th January, 1985 the learned Magistrate discharged the accused person. Hence, under the Code the learned Magistrate had no power to revive the case. 3. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the case of Maj. Gen. A.S. Gauraya & anr. Vs. S.N. Thakur & Anr., reported in 1986 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 115 which is also reported in 1986 Cr. LJ 1074, where after issuance of the process against accused directing them to appear before the learned Magistrate, then the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant After the complains was restored to file reversing the order of dismissal the accused challenged the order before the High Court. Being aggrieved the appellant in that case preferred an appeal for determination of the question as to whether the learned Magistrate enjoyed any inherent power not provided in the Code itself by revising such proceeding. Being aggrieved the appellant in that case preferred an appeal for determination of the question as to whether the learned Magistrate enjoyed any inherent power not provided in the Code itself by revising such proceeding. The learned Judges of the Supreme Court were of the view that the Criminal Procedure Code did not contain any provision enabling the criminal court to exercise such an inherent power. The learned Judges after considering the case of Bindeswari Prosad Singh Vs. Kali Singh, reported in 1977 (1) SCR 125 were of the view that learned Magistrate had no such power Following the said decision. Lilmoy Ghosh, J. in the case of Md. Mojnu Sheikh & Ors. Vs. Md. Zulfikar Ali Molla & Anr. reported in 1987 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter 272 held that where the complaint stood dismissed for non-appearance of the complainant in the court which was subsequently restored to file directing issue of process when such order was questioned in revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, the learned Judge following both the decisions of the Supreme Court of Maj. Gen. A.S. Gauraya & anr Vs. S.N. Thakur, reported in 1986 C.Cr.L.R. 115 and also the case of Bindeshsari Singh Vs. Kali Singh, reported in 1977 (1) SCR 125 was of the view that it was abundantly clear that in the Criminal Procedure Code there is no provision for restoration of a case. Applying the said decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner this court is of the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate restoring the petition to file for revival is without jurisdiction. As a result that order is set aside. This, however, will not prevent the complainant from filing a complains before the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. if the complainant is so advised. The case is thus disposed of. Inasmuch as this Court has disposed of this application on the first point urged by the learned Advocate for petitioner and has not dealt with and/or gone into the points urged by the petitioner, those points are left open A.C. Sengupta, J. – I agree.