1. The applicant, Gulzari Lal, had filed a complaint against certain persons charging them with an offence under Section 477 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was pending for about two years in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Naini Tal. On the 8th June 1911, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order directing the complainant to pay Rs. 46-8-0 for expenses to the two accused and Rs. 18, to a witness. On the 9th June, he passed a farther order directing the camplainant to pay Rs. 45 to the accused. On the 28th June, in the absence of the complainant, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dismissed the complaint and in his order of dismissal directed the complainant to pay Rs. 45 to the accused. The complainant went in revision to the District Magistrate against the order of the 9th June. This application was dismissed by ths District Magistrate by an order of the 27th June 1911. The complainant now applies to this Court for revision of the lower Court's order of the 8th and 28th June and also for revision of the District Magistrate's order of the 27th June. A preliminary objection is taken that it is not the usual practice of this Court to entertain applications in revision when the applicant might have gone to the District Magistrate or the Sessions Judge in the first instance. In this case the applicant had already applied in revision in respect of the order of the 9th June to the District Magistrate and his application has been dismiseed. As all the three orders are closely connected, I do not think it necessary to insist on the applicant going to the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate and filing application in revision against the orders of the 8th and 28th June. So far as the orders of the 8th and 9th June are concerned, they are covered by the wide provisions of Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate found it necessary to postpone the case on these two dates, because the complainant had failed to take the necessary steps to summon his witnesses. As to the final order of the 28th June, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate probably intended to make it under Section 250 of the Code. That order, in my opinion, cannot be supported. The provisions of Section 250 have not been complied with. That section provides that before making an order of compensation, the Magistrate should record and consider what objections complainant may make. The order having been made in the absence of the complainant, no opportunity was afforded to him of making any objection. This application for revision is so far allowed that the order of the 28th June, directing payment of Rs. 45 to the accused is set saide, and I direct that this amount be recovered and re-paid to the complainant. The application is otherwise dismissed.