Judgment :- 1. Respondent wag found by the members of the "Theomala Poura Samithi" carrying for sale unlawfully manufactured arrack in contravention of S.58 of the Abkari Act. He was apprehended and produced by them at about 8 p.m. on 10-1-1986 before the Thenmala Police Station. The police arrested the respondent and prepared a mahazar. He was then produced before the Excise Inspector with the arrack and mahazar with a further report that be committed an offence punishable under S.58 of the Abkari Act. The Excise Range Inspector, Pathanapuram prosecuted the respondent before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Punalur in Crime No. 4 of 1986 for having committed an offence punishable under S.58 of the Abkari Act. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process under S.204. Respondent was arrested and produced before him on 31-7-1986. He stated particulars of the offence to the respondent and recorded bis plea on the same day under S.251. Plea was not guilty. 2. Immediately thereafter on the same day the Magistrate, without hearing the prosecution and simply stating "This case coming on for the day's proceedings" proceeded to acquit the accused under S.255 (1). The reasons alleged are: (1) In the allegations made in the report of the Excise Range Inspector, there is no whisper of the required knowledge (Mens rea) contemplated in S.58. (2) The statutory powers and functions, if any, of the "so called Thenmala Poura Samithi" for production of the accused before the police station is not revealed from the charge-sheet. Under the Abkari Act there is no such delegation of powers to detect the offence by private forums, Status (3) The charge-sheet is silent from where the accused was captured or when? (4)The Excise Inspector laid the charge without conducting proper investigation. (5) The Station House Officer, Thenmala Police Station and the Excise Inspector acted illegally on the basis of the illegal actions of the Poura Samithi since there was nothing to show that the accused committed any non-bailable or cognizable offence. An offence under S.58 of the Abkari Act is non-cognizable and bailable. Both the Station House Officer and the Excise Inspector ratified the illegal actions of the private forum which took law into its hands. and (6) Therefore there is no question of questioning the accused under S.251. An offence under S.58 of the Abkari Act is non-cognizable and bailable. Both the Station House Officer and the Excise Inspector ratified the illegal actions of the private forum which took law into its hands. and (6) Therefore there is no question of questioning the accused under S.251. (But in fact the Magistrate questioned the accused under S.251 and recorded his plea of not guilty as seen from the judgment itself). 3. The complainant - Excise Inspector has come up in appeal with leave. 4. I think that the learned Magistrate acted illegally and acted beyond the scope of Chapter XX of the Code. Even if any of the grounds relied on by the Magistrate existed justifying a decision under S.203 that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he ought to have dismissed the complaint at that stage under S.203. After having taken cognizance of the offence and issued process under S.204 on the satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he bad no right to go back or review his own decision. In this case there is the further position that the accused was brought before the Magistrate under S.251 and he even stated the particulars and recorded the plea. The plea was not guilty. Then the only course open to the magistrate in an S. T. case for which summons procedure is applicable is to proceed under S.254 and convict or acquit the accused under S.255. No other action at an intermediate stage is contemplated. 5. A Magistrate is always bound by his own actions or the actions of his predecessor or transferor at any previous stage in the same case. He cannot go on sitting in judgment over the earlier actions. All the grounds relied on by the Magistrate, if correct, were to be considered at the pre-cognizance stage or at any rate after cognizance and before taking decision to issue process under S.204. Even though issue of process under S.204 need not be on the basis of an order, whether reasoned or not, the mere fact that process is issued is a visible manifestation of the satisfaction on the basis of which the magistrate decided to proceed further. After having done so, on the same materials he cannot take a different decision before proceeding under S.254. That will amount to reviewing or sitting in judgment over the earlier order which is not legally justified. After having done so, on the same materials he cannot take a different decision before proceeding under S.254. That will amount to reviewing or sitting in judgment over the earlier order which is not legally justified. The Magistrate cannot go on changing his views or having re-thinkings whenever be wants. So far as the same court is concerned, there is always finality in respect of earlier actions. 6. The judgment is defective for other reasons also. When process is issued and the accused is brought the Magistrate is bound to state the particulars and proceed with the case if be is not acting under S.252 or 253. Existence or otherwise of mens rea is a matter that he had to consider before the stage of S.204 and it cannot at any rate be considered at or after the stage of S.251 and before the final decision under S.255. Further the Magistrate ought to have borne in mind that S.255 (3) is there and it authorises conviction for the offence which from the facts admitted or proved, the accused appears to have committed, whatever may be the nature of the complaint or summons, if he is satisfied that the accused is not prejudiced thereby. So also he ought to have realised that there are S.215, 221 and 464 dealing with errors, omissions or doubts in the charge. That is all the more so when on the charge and the materials the magistrate has decided to proceed with the case. All further matters could have been considered only at the final stage on the basis of the materials then available because the position can always change by the evidence. No error or omission in the charge or particulars shall, under S.215, be regarded as material unless the accused was misled or failure of justice resulted. As Illustration to that section shows omission of the word "fraudulently" is not material unless the accused is misled or failure of justice resulted. Whether allegation of 'mens rea' could be read into the charge under the existing allegations themselves is also a matter that could have been considered in the circumstances only at the final stage. 7. As Illustration to that section shows omission of the word "fraudulently" is not material unless the accused is misled or failure of justice resulted. Whether allegation of 'mens rea' could be read into the charge under the existing allegations themselves is also a matter that could have been considered in the circumstances only at the final stage. 7. Antecedent illegality or irregularity in detection of crime or registration of the case or investigation or inquiry, if any, are not matters to be considered at that stage when the complaint was filed by a competent person and cognizance was taken and the magistrate issued process on the requisite satisfaction. The manner in which the complainant got information regarding the offence, the legality or illegality of the source, the sufficiency or insufficiency of the details of the informations etc. are not matters which could have influenced the judicial mind in taking the impugned decision at that stage. Whether Poura Samithi had any legal authority or whether the offence was cognizable or non-cognizable and such other matters considered by the Magistrate were also foreign to the scope of determination for the purpose. When cognizance was taken and process issued why should the magistrate consider when and how the crime was detected or whether the Police Officer or Excise Inspector acted properly or not. Magistrate was never alerted of these matters by anybody and be seems to have acted on bis own. The magistrate seems to have entertained unnecessary and unjustified considerations and acted illegally in acquitting the accused at a stage when be was not entitled to do so. The criminal appeal is therefore allowed and the order of acquittal is set aside. The case is remanded for trial and disposal on the merits according to law.