1. This application for revision is based on two main grounds:
It is argued that a Sessions Judge cannot take up at the instance of a private person any revision of a Magistrate's order of discharge in a case instituted under Section 476, Criminal P.C. 2. That a Sessions Judge cannot interfere with an order of discharge unless the order is manifestly foolish and perverse.
2. Prosecution in this case was ordered by a Munsif as the result of certain proceedings in his Court under Section 476, Criminal P.C. Undoubtedly it is not the intention of the Legislature that a private person should be encouraged to conduct prosecutions in cases of this kind, but no consideration of that nature, applies to the present case. This prosecution has been duly started and the magistrate has passed an order of discharge which appears to the Sessions. Judge to be unwarranted by the evidence. The Session Judge is, therefore, empowered under Section 435 of the Criminal P.C. to call for the record and if he is dissatisfied with the correctness, legality or propriety of the finding, to order a further enquiry under Section 436. In every case somebody must bring the matter to the notice of the Sessions Judge, as it cannot be supposed that he is aware of all the orders of discharge passed by the Magistrates in his jurisdiction and there is nothing in the Code to limit the persons who can bring the matter to the notice of the Sessions Judge. Thus it is immaterial how these facts were brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge in the present case and as he had ample power to deal with the matter there is nothing in the first ground of revision.
3. As to the second ground this appears to be based on some decisions of the Lahore High Court which are not in conformity with those of the Allahabad High Court. The law was laid down by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Queen-Empress v. Chotu  9 All. 52. It has not been the practice of this High Court to restrict the powers of Sessions Judges any further than they are restricted by the Criminal P.C. In the present case it is sufficient to say that the Judge not only disagrees with the finding of the lower Court and points out certain considerations which, in his opinion, should, have led to a different finding, but be also states that one necessary witness was not examined. I am certainly not prepared to allow this revision on the ground that witness is now dead. I have only to consider whether the Sessions Judge passed a legal and reasonable order. I am satisfied that he did so and that there is no ground for interference by this Court. I dismiss this application and order that the record be returned.