Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
1. The petitioner, who is the Reddy of the village and a man of means, filed a complaint before the District Magistrate charging the Acting Tahsildar of Siruguppah with having beaten him with a slipper. The District Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The sworn statement of the complainant and the deposition of the witnesses examined before the District Magistrate in the enquiry held by him under Section 202, have been read and commented upon and I am of opinion that the evidence recorded certainly affords good grounds for further enquiry. I am unable to see any material discrepancy, or anything on the face of the record to warrant a summary dismissal of the complaint. There can be little doubt from the evidence that the Tahsildar wanted the Reddy to supply him with milk. The evidence of the Revenue Inspector is to the effect that 'there was some trouble between the Tahsildar and the Reddy about the milk.' He professes to have left the place just then. The petitioner speaks to the assault and two of his witnesses state that the Tahsildar beat the complainant with a shoe and the discrepancies do not affect their credibility in any material way. There has not been any long delay--at least no such delay as would warrant the throwing out of the case in limine.
3. I am of opinion that this is a case that requires a full and thorough investigation. It is argued that no revision petition will lie to the High Court unless the party has first applied to the Sessions Court and reference has been made to Shafaqatullah v. Wali Ahmad Khan 30 A.P 116 : A.W.N. (1908) 25 : 3 M.L.T. 124 : 7 Cri. L.J. 48, Bhuyan Abdus Sobhan Khan, In re 2 Ind. Cas. 846 : 36 C.P 643 : 13 C.W.N. 653 : 16 Cri. L.J. 190 and Queen-Empress v. Chagan Dayaram 14 B.P 331.
4. The jurisdiction confered by the Criminal Procedure Code on the High Court is wide and I do not think it ought to be fettered by any hard and fast rule. All that is laid down in Bhuyan Abdus Sobhan Khan, In re 2 Ind. Cas. 846 : 36 C.P 643 : 13 C.W.N. 653 : 16 Cri. L.J. 190 is that the High Court will not ordinarily interfere except on special grounds, when a party does not exhaust his remedy by applying to the Sessions Court. This decision was followed in Shafaqatullah v. Wall Ahmad Khan 30 A.P 116 : A.W.N. (1908) 25 : 3 M.L.T. 124 : 7 Cri. L.J. 48. I do not think the cases cited lay down any inflexible rule. Nor do I think it desirable that any such rule should be laid down. In the present case, the petition was admitted by Mr. Justice Ayling and the papers have all been printed. I see no grounds for refusing to act and to send the parties back to the Sessions Court to begin the whole proceedings de novo.
5. I set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that the case be proceeded with according to law. I direct that the complaint be transferred to the District Magistrate of Kurnool and disposed of by him. I do not suggest that the evidence of the witnesses referred to by me above, may not in the long run turn out to be not worthy of belief, either after they are cross-examined or when other witnesses are examined. All I wish to state is that at the present stage of the proceedings there is no reason to reject their evidence.