George Knox, Ag. C.J.
1. This application in revision is presented on behalf of one Madho Gir Goshain. It appears that Madho Gir Goshain instituted a complaint in the first instance against a Sub-Inspector and five other persons in the Court of a 1st Class Magistrate, who was Sub-Divisional Officer and apparently a Sub-Divisional Officer for the sub-division in which the alleged offence was supposed to have occurred. The 1st Class Magistrate took cognizance of the case and acted under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He proceeded also to follow it up with action under Section 202, but in doing so omitted one important point. He did not record the reasons showing why he was not satisfied as to the truth of the complaint of the offence of which he was taking cognizance. It is most unfortunate to find the almost systematic neglect with which some Magistrates treat this provision contained in Section 202. It is a most important provision, as has already been pointed out in Ram Pershad v. Moti (1) 20 Ind. Cas. 749, 14 Cr. L. J. 493 : (sic)II A. L. J. 754. He appears also to have committed a further irregularity, for he proceeded to enquire into the case himself and also authorized a previous local investigation to be made by a Police Officer. Before the return had been made he was replaced by another Magistrate who was placed in charge of the sub-division who, on the 13th of December 1916, made a report to the District Magistrate, I cannot help calling attention to this, which appears to have been a distinct irregularity A Magistrate who has taken cognizance of an offence under Section 200 is, until he is relieved, if relieved at all of the case, the person who ought to make final orders in the case. He cannot relieve himself of the responsibility by shifting the burden on to the District Magistrate. I asked whether in the present case he had been so relieved and it was not pointed out to me that the District Magistrate had by any order removed this case from the file of this Sub-Divisional Officer. A Magistrate charged with this responsibility and falling back upon the District Magistrate shows himself in this respect to be not a person who ought to hold charge of a subdivision. Upon this report being received by the District Magistrate, I find the following order: 'I direct you to proceed to the spot and make a full investigation into the allegations and to send in a report with your finding after examining all persons likely to be of assistance.' This was a direction no District Magistrate ought to have made to a Subordinate Magistrate in a case pending before that Magistrate. If he considered that the Magistrate in charge of the sab-division was for any reason not proceeding properly with the case, he should have withdrawn the case, proceeded with it himself and taken the responsibility upon his own shoulders. It is represented to me that this is what the District Magistrate virtually did. But the result was that there were from the 15th December 1916 until the 24th of February 1917 two Magistrates conducting this investigation---the Magistrate in charge of the sub-division and the District Magistrate, who was instructing him how he was to proceed. However, the result has been that we have had in this investigation several Magistrates independent of each other investigating into this case and arriving at the conclusion---one and all of them---that the complaint is not a true complaint. The Sessions Judge of Cawnpore has also taken part in this investigation and he arrives at the same conclusion. I cannot find that the applicant has been in any way prejudiced and think it very inexpedient that this complaint should be further pursued. I, therefore, refuse to interfere and dismiss the application.