George Knox, J.
1. Tabarak Zaman Khan on the 7th June last sen a letter written by himself through his servant Sumera to the Sub-Inspector of Kampil Police Circle, charging one Sukha Ahir with having committed the offence of theft. The police investigated the case, and, considering the charge not proved, sent in what is known as naksha B. They asked that the case might be expunged from the register of crimes and that a case might be instituted against Tabarak Zaman Khan for having given false information to the Police. The proceedings never went any further and never reached any Court. The District Magistrate after perusing them passed an order to the effect that a case might be instituted against Tabarak Zaman Khan and that he should be charged with having committed an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge was asked to consider this order and to send it on to this Court for revision. He has done so. He considers that in passing the order he did, the Magistrate took action under Section 195, Clause (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is of opinion that the applicant should have been given an opportunity to prove the charge which bad been brought by his servant, and that an order of this kind, being an order prejudicial to Tabarak Zaman Khan, should not have been passed without notice given to Tabarak Zaman Khan. The order passed by the District Magistrate could not have been an order under Section 195(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, By making his report at the police thana at Kampil, Tabarak Zaman Khan had committed no offence in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, the more so, as he did not follow up his report by complaint in any Court. Section 195(6) has no application to the case, and the argument based by the learned Sessions Judge upon it falls to the ground. The cases which the learned Sessions Judge has referred to in his letter of reference to this Court, viz., King Emperor v. Ganga Ram (1885) I.L.R. 8 All. 38 and Emperor v. Tula (1907) I.L.R. 29 All. 587, refer to complaints which had been lodged in a Criminal Court, and in both these cases no further action could be taken against the complainant except under a sanction expressly given under Section 195 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of Haibat Khan v. Emperor (1905) I.L.R. 33 Calc. 31 was a case in which '' a judicial inquiry 'had been held by a Court. Here also a sanction under Section 195 (b) would have been necessary before any action could be taken against the complainant.
2. The argument that the order should not have been passed without notice to Tabarak Zaman Khan, in my opinion proceeds too far. If the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge be correct, then an order passed by the District Magistrate upon what is known as naksha B. to the effect that an accused person should be sent up for trial for murder or theft, when the Police considers that there is no case of murder or theft, would be an order without notice given to the supposed murderer or thief, to show came why such prejudicial order should not be passed against him. As a rule in cases like the one before me, the safer and more proper course is undoubtedly to let the informant bring his witnesses to the Court, hear them out, and then pass an order, if the case is considered to be a false one, to the effect that the informant be tried for having instituted a false case; but I am not prepared to hold that the Magistrate while passing an order like the one under reference is acting without jurisdiction merely because the informant had not an opportunity given him to show cause why a case under Section 211 should not be instituted against him. The case before me is really one for inquiry under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. After these remarks I decline to interfere, and return the record to the Court below for such action as it may think necessary to take.