1. It appears that a riot of some sort occurred on the 29th of March, 1922. After protracted Police enquiries a number of persons were put on their trial, but the learned Magistrate, eventually, by an order dated 12th October 1922, discharged all the accused. He has written a very full judgment and has given reasons Showing that every one of the prosecution witnesses so far contradicted himself and the other evidence in the case in cross-examination that it would be quite unsafe to rely on the prosecution evidence. The learned District Magistrate, by an order of the 15th of November 1922, set aside the order of discharge and directed a re-trial. The main reason he gives is that he took a different view of the evidence from that taken by the Trial Court. It seems to me there are two objections to his order. The first is that no notice was given to the accused before action was taken under Section 437. Secondly, the mere fact that, the District Magistrate does not agree with the decision of the Trying Court is not sufficient ground for ordering a further enquiry which is what is directed by Section 437. This case is very similar to Udai Raj Singh v. Emperor 71 Ind. Cas. 528 : 44 A 691 : (1922) A.L.R. (A.) 429 to which I would call the attention of the learned Magistrate. The only difference between that case and this is that in this case the Magistrate suggests that the Doctor should have been examined specifically with regard to some of the allegations made by the defence and that another witness should have been called under Section 540. In my opinion, there was no ground to order further enquiry in this case, specially haying regard to the long period which has elapsed since the riot occurred, I, therefore, set aside the order of the learned District Magistrate dated the 15th of November 1922.