1. This is an application for revision of an. order passed under Section 476 directing the prosecution of the accused under Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code. The application has teen pressed on the facts only, but there is no doubt on the Magistrate's order that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. It appears that the complainant had filed a list of witnesses and the case had teen adjourned for their evidence. On the adjourned date the two applicants, Sita Ram and' Ram Lal, appeared as witnesses, and in their evidence gave their names as Radha Kishen and Pershadi Lal, respectively, these being the two witnesses for whose evidence the case had teen adjourned. The Trying Magistrate took action under Section 476 of the Indian Penal Code. The case came before the District Magistrate who passed, an order purporting to uphold the Trying Magistrate's order but to alter the charge from one under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code, on an application for revision presented by the accused. If the Trial Court had granted sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it would, no doubt, have teen within the power of the District Magistrate, as the Court to which appeals would ordinarily lie, to uphold or modify that sanction, but where an order has been passed under Section 476 the District Magistrate has no power to alter it. The order of the District Magistrate was, therefore, ultra vires and I set it aside and restore the order passed by the Canal Magistrate. It will, however, to open to the Court which tries the case to frame a charge under Section 205 of the Indian Penal Code if the evidence discloses an offence under that section.