1. I do not think that there is sufficient ground for ordering a re-prosecution in this case. Where a competent Court has dismissed a case after considering the evidence, and giving thorough and careful reasons, I do not think, unless there is clear evidence of a miscarriage of justice, that an accused party, who has stood his trial, ought to be ordered to run the risk again. The general principle of the criminal law is that a man is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and if he has been properly tried and acquitted by a competent Court, the least that you can say is that there is a reasonable doubt about his guilt and I think the usual practice is not to encourage the prosecution to have a second shot, unless there is some very strong reason in the public interest. Now if the Collector's view was a correct interpretation of the Magistrate's view, namely, that the complaint was a trivial affair and not worth inquiring into, I should be inclined' to agree with the Collector. He clearly thought that the Magistrate had not really tried out the merits, because he himself says, 'without expressing any opinion as to the truth or falsehood of the complaint, I direct further inquiry to be made into this case by the Magistrate.' But I think the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant was not asserting a true case. The Collector further quotes the judgment. He says that the Magistrate said 'that for such an ordinary 'marpit' there could not be such a complaint.' As I understand, the word 'marpit' means the commission of an assault; but in the vernacular the words are 'mamuli bat' which is an entirely different thing and does not necessarily involve an offence at all. Of course if the Magistrate had said that it was an ordinary marpit, there would have been a good deal in what the Collector said in his judgment. The Collector seems to have been misled by the translation. I allow this application and for the reasons given reverse the order directing farther enquiry.