1. The facts of this case are apparent from the order of reference passed by the Sessions Judge and the order of the District Magistrate passed on appeal. It is quite clear that on the 14th of August 1916, when the case came up for delivery of judgment, only two Magistrates were present, they being the two who had heard the case throughout and were competent to judge. They were unable to agree. Under Rule 7 of the Rules for the guidance of Benches laid down by Government Order No. 184(a), dated the 19th of August 1875, which rules have been adopted at Aligarh, in the case of the Bench in question, the accused was entitled to be acquitted by the two Magistrates who were present on the 14th of August 1916. The Magistrates, instead of so acquitting, referred the case to a Perganna Officer, who returned it to them with orders to do their duty. They then called in the third Magistrate who constituted the Bench, but who had been present only at one hearing out of the numerous hearings of the case. He agreed with one and the order of the Bench was passed in accordance therewith. On appeal to the District Magistrate, the conviction has been set aside, but the District Magistrate has ordered a re-trial. The learned Sessions Judge is of opinion that no re-trial should have been ordered. Apart from the fact that under the rules, the accused were entitled to the benefit of the doubt as the rule expressed it, the fact that the accused have been harassed by the undue duration of this case and of the numerous hearings and the fact that the case is of a trivial nature, are quite sufficient grounds for refusing to direct a further re-hearing of the case. The case is one in which all proceedings should cease at once. I, therefore, accept the reference and quash all the proceedings. The record will be returned.