1. This is in application for revision of an order discharging the accused in a charge triable by the Sessions Court. An application in revision was made to the District Magistrate who rejected it. The history of the case is this. The Magistrate who heard it after hearing witnesses under Section 202 originally came to the conclusion that the complaint was groundless and dismissed it under a, 203, Cr. P.C. On application being made to him the District Magistrate directed a further inquiry. The Deputy Magistrate then made a full inquiry and after examining witnesses at length and taking the statements of the accused again came to the conclusion that the charge was false. He accordingly discharged the accused. It is said that in doing so he was usurping the functions of the Sessions Judge, but even in the authority relied on by the applicant, namely, In re Bai Parvati 8 Ind. Cas. 631 : 35 B. 163 : 12 Bom. L.R. 923 : 11 Cr. L.J. 692 it is laid down that when a Committing Magistrate finds that the prosecution evidence is totally unworthy of credit it is his duty to discharge the accused. The ruling of this Court in Ganpat Lal v. Emperor 81 Ind. Cas. 315 : 46 A. 537 : 22 A.L.J. 411 : 10 O. & A.L.R. 551 : 25 Cr. L.J. 795 : (1924) A.I.R. (A.) 664 : L.R. 5 A. 174 Cr is to the same effect.
2. A further complaint is made that all the evidence was not recorded. Only one witness has been mentioned, and it appears from the District Magistrate's order that he was not re-examined. Where all the material evidence has been heard and disbelieved I am not prepared to set aside the order merely because there were one or two subsidiary witnesses who might have been called but whose evidence was not recorded. I find no reason to interfere and I dismiss the application.