Judgment.- This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of the Court of Additional Munsif and First Class Magistrate, Secunderabad, dated the 27th March, 1958, made in Criminal Case No. 460/3 of 1957, finding the accused not guilty of charges under section 86(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 and ordering dismissal of the complaint made by the complainant in the case. The complaint in this case was preferred by one Insurance Inspector, Aziz Qureshi, on behalf of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation at Secunderabad, against one Bade Saheb as the principal employer of Shivaji Press, carrying on business at Secunderabad. The complaint was filed under section 86(2) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act of 1948. The learned Additional Munsif and First Class Magistrate, Secunderabad, held that the Inspector, Aziz Qureshi, is only authorised under Exhibit P-1 to represent the Corporation in all cases falling within the jurisdiction of Mahabubnagar, Hyderabad, Medak, Nizamabad and Adilabad districts of Andhra Pradesh, to which the Corporation is a party and to act, appear and make application on behalf of the Corporation in such cases, and that as the present case was before the Additional Munsif and First Class Magistrate, Secunderabad, and as the Secunderabad Courts have a separate existence and that as the Courts for the District of Hyderabad are also separate, the Secunderabad Courts cannot be deemed to be within the District of Hyderabad and that being the case, Exhibit P-1 did not give authority to the Inspector to file a complaint on behalf of the Corporation in the Secunderabad Courts. So holding, the learned Additional Munsif dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused. At the outset it may be pointed out that the final order of the learned Additional Munsif and First Class Magistrate is confusing and incorrect. There is no question of dismissing a complaint after it is taken on file and evidence is recorded in pursuance of the complaint and the accused has also entered his appearance and offered his defence under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, the stage when a complaint should be dismissed is before the trial begins on the complaint. Once evidence is recorded, if it is a warrant case, then an order of discharge can be made under section 253(2) or 253(1) as the case may be, and in other cases the accused could only be acquitted. In other words, the stage when a complaint should be dismissed is before the trial begins on the complaint. Once evidence is recorded, if it is a warrant case, then an order of discharge can be made under section 253(2) or 253(1) as the case may be, and in other cases the accused could only be acquitted. When once the case ends in an acquittal, there is no question of dismissing the complaint. Therefore, the order of the. Magistrate in dismissing the complaint after acquitting the accused is totally wrong. The proper order the Magistrate could have made was to acquit the accused if he felt that the charge was not maintainable or was not proved. It now remains to examine whether the grounds on which the Magistrate purported to acquit the accused are valid. The point on which the decision is based seems to be that as Secunderabad Courts have separate existence apart from the Courts in Hyderabad, Secunderabad could not be deemed to be part of Hyderabad District and any authorisation given to represent the Corporation in cases in Hyderabad District could not be validly applicable to Courts in Secunderabad. This assumption, on which the learned Munsif-Magistrate based his decision, is based on a confusion of thought. Each Court functions within the limits of its own jurisdiction. But this is quite different from saying that the place where that Court functions is not geographically located within a district demarcated and determined by the Government or by an Act passed by a Legislature. In the present case, the authorisation Exhibit P-1 extends to all cases in Courts within the jurisdiction of the Hyderabad District of Andhra Pradesh, to which the Corporation is a party. Therefore, the point to determine is whether the Additional Munsif and First Class Magistrate’s Court, Secunderabad, is or is not a Court exercising jurisdiction within the Hyderabad District of Andhra Pradesh. Now, the Andhra Pradesh State was formed by the States Reorganization Act XXXVII of 1956. A reference to section 3(1) of the Act shows what districts of Telangana or of the old Hyderabad State, had been added to the Andhra Pradesh. Section 3(1)(a) runs as follows: "3. Now, the Andhra Pradesh State was formed by the States Reorganization Act XXXVII of 1956. A reference to section 3(1) of the Act shows what districts of Telangana or of the old Hyderabad State, had been added to the Andhra Pradesh. Section 3(1)(a) runs as follows: "3. Transfer of territory from Hyderabad to Andhra and alteration of name- (1) As from the appointed day, there shall be added to the State of Andhra the territories comprised in- (a) the districts of Hyderabad, Medak, Nizamabad, Karimnagar, Warangal, Khammam, Nalgonda and Mahabubnagar;" In the above sub-clause, the reference is to the Telangana Districts of the old Hyderabad State which has been added on to the old Andhra State so as to make up the present Andhra Pradesh State, and in this we find a reference to the Hyderabad District. It is not disputed that geographically Secunderabad area is located in the Hyderabad District limits. But what is contended is, that because at one time Secunderabad Courts exercised jurisdiction independent of the Hyderabad Courts, the authorization, Exhibit P-1, should not be construed so as to cover these Courts also. The authorization in question makes it clear that it extends to and covers all the Courts within the District of Hyderabad, irrespective of whether they are functioning independently or otherwise. So long as the Court of the Additional Munsif and First Class Magistrate, Secunderabad, is functioning within the limits of the District of Hyderabad, it will be one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in the Hyderabad District, in which case the authorization, Exhibit P-1, covers that Court also; so that, it is clear that the Inspector, Aziz Qureshi, by virtue of Exhibit P-1 has the necessary authority and competency to represent the Corporation before the First Class Magistrate, Secunderabad. The view taken by the learned Magistrate is totally unsustainable and must be set aside. This necessitates the setting aside of the acquittal of the accused in this case. The only order that has to be made in these circumstances is to remit the case to the Court of the Additional Munsif and the First Class Magistrate, Secunderabad. But it is represented that there is no Additional Munsif’s Court at Secunderabad, but only a First Class Magistrate’s Court. The case will go back to the First Class Magistrate’s Court, Secunderabad, for disposal on the merits and according to law. But it is represented that there is no Additional Munsif’s Court at Secunderabad, but only a First Class Magistrate’s Court. The case will go back to the First Class Magistrate’s Court, Secunderabad, for disposal on the merits and according to law. A.S.R. ----- Order set aside: case remitted.