1. Madusudan Lal has applied in revision to this Court from an order passed by the District Magistrate of Agra. There can be little doubt that the order is not legal, and the District Magistrate had authority to hear the appeal under 8. 195(5), Criminal P.C. The complaint under Section 182, I.P.C., has been made against Madusudan Lal by Mr. Nur-ul-Hasan Sahib, returning officer of Etmadpur in the district of Agra. Under Rule 16 of the rules made by Government in the Local Self-Government Department on 27th May 1925, Part 1, the returning officer is empowered to hear all claims and objections which are made to the Electoral Roll. Under Rule 17, the District Magistrate is given authority to review an order of the returning officer and make any consequent correction in the Electoral Roll, By reference to these two rules it may be taken as certain that the returning officer is a public servant subordinate to the District Magistrate under the rules. Direction was given by the returning officer for the prosecution of Madusudan Lal for giving false information. This complaint may be withdrawn by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate of Agra, therefore, was not justified in refusing jurisdiction on 1st May 1929.
2. In my opinion, however, this Court cannot interfere in revision with an order of the District Magistrate passed under Section 195(5) even though he denied jurisdiction under the provisions of that section. I have already quoted Rule 17 under which the District Magistrate may review an order of the returning officer. It cannot be contended that from such an order of review an application for revision would lie to this Court. It was argued, however, that as the District Magistrate acquired jurisdiction in this matter under a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure the provisions of Section 435 of that Code will apply to his order. The provisions of Section 435 do not apply to District Magistrates but to criminal Courts inferior to this Court. When exercising jurisdiction under the Election Rules of the District Board the District Magistrate does not act as a criminal Court but acts as an authority to whom the returning officer is subordinate. For that reason this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the District Magistrate pronounced under the circumstances narrated above. There is a ruling of the Bombay High Court, In re, Dalsukhram Hargovandas  9 Bom. L.R. 1347. It was held there that a Magistrate having an appellate jurisdiction under the District Municipal Act of Bombay 1901, was not an inferior criminal Court to which the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court may be extended.
3. It is possible that if a copy of this order is submitted to the District Magistrate he would re-consider his order of 1st May, and hear the appeal filed by Madusudan Lal.
4. This application is dismissed.