1. The applicant in this case is one Parmeshwari Das, who prosecuted the opposite party on charges of rioting and illegal confinement. The case was made over to a Bench of Honorary Magistrates who after taking the evidence made an order on the 18th of January 1919 discharging the opposite party of the offence of rioting and illegal confinement. The Bench, however, framed a charge-sheet under Section 323 and fixed the 10th of February 1919 as the date for hearing. In the meantime the applicant Parmeshwari Das has applied to the District Magistrate for transfer of his case from the Bench of Honorary Magistrates and his application was disallowed. On the 10th of February 1919 when the case came up for hearing, the Bench of Honorary Magistrates, without proceeding any further with the case, made an order that as the opposite party had been discharged by them on the 18th of January 1919 the case could not proceed under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case was struck off. It is from this order of the 10th of February 1919 that Parmeshwari Das has come up in revision to this Court and contends that Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code has no application what-soever. I think that the contention is well founded. I think that the contention is well founded. The section in question applies to cases of acquittal or conviction and not to cases of discharge. The order striking off the case from the list of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates was illegal. I set it aside and direct the Bench to dispose of the case according to law.