1. In this case the Bench, as originally constituted when the case was opened, consisted of three gentlemen (Honorary Magistrates) who were duly appointed members of the Bench. One of them left at an early stage of the proceedings when he had heard only part of the case for the prosecution and took no further part in the proceedings. The other two gentlemen beard the whole of the case. One of them wrote the judgment but did not sign it, although he initialled certain corrections in the text. The other one signed it. It is quite clear that both took part in the hearing of the case and the decision which was ultimately arrived at. It is, therefore, a case which has been heard and decided by two Honorary Magistrates. The point originally taken before this Court in revision was that the judgment should have been signed by both the Magistrates. But I have allowed arguments to proceed upon the other point, namely, that it should be presumed that the only Bench which could hear the case was the Bench of three Magistrates and, therefore, the hearing and decision were illegal as having been arrived at by two only. All I have before me is Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which enables the Local Government to appoint persons to be members of a Bench of two or more Magistrates. Both the two gentlemen who took part in this case were legally appointed under that section, as appears by extracts from the Government Notification which has been supplied to this Court at my request by the District Magistrate. There is nothing before me to show that there was a special order in this case, or applicable to all cases of the class to which this case belongs, requiring as a matter of law three persons to hear and decide it. I hold that under these circumstances a hearing and decision by two Magistrates is in accordance with the law. The mere fact that three or any other number happened to be present during part of the hearing does not invalidate the trial of the case by two. The application is dismissed.