1. This is a Rule against an order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barrack-pore, rescinding an order of summoning certain accused Under Sections. 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, the reason being that after the order for issue of summons had been passed but before summons was issued, the learned, Sub-Divisional Magistrate thought that there had been some error on his part in interpreting the police report and that the matter, therefore, required further enquiry.
2. The facts in this case are very similar to those considered by Lodge J. in the case of Ramdahin Singh v. P. Metharam, : AIR1948Cal342 . I agree entirely with the views expressed therein. The procedure adopted is irregular bat no injustice I think has been done. The more correct procedure in such a case in my opinion would be for the Magistrate to move the District Judge to refer the case to this Court for an order cancelling the order of issuing summons. Had the ease come before me, in that way, I have no doubt that I would have passed an order cancelling the order issuing summons.
3. In the circumstances, therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order as passed.
4. The Rule is accordingly discharged.