Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
1. The Sub-Magistrate probably acted under a wrong Section (523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) instead of under the proper section which seems to be applicable, namely, Section 517. But I do not think that that is a sufficient ground for interference in revision if the order can be supported under the latter section.
2. The Magistrate had before him the evidence given for the prosecution in the inquiry and there is nothing in the Code which requires that the passing of the summary order under Section 517 [which order ought to be made at the time of the passing of the judgment in the criminal case itself: Rash Mohun Goshamy v. Kali Nath Raha 19 W.R. 3 should follow a fresh inquiry after giving opportunity to the party to produce new or further evidence.
3. I, therefore, decline to interfere.