1. This is a Rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 352 and 504, I.P.C. should not be set aside. The parties live in two flats in the same house and apparently, as so frequently happens, they find it difficult to get on with each other. At any rate it appears that there was a violent quarrel between them on the day of occurrence. Both sides brought cases of mutual assault and they were both tried by Mr. H.K. De, Fourth Presidency Magistrate. Bach side, if their own version is to be accepted, did nothing at all and was merely the victim of an assault. It seems reasonably clear however that both sides lost their temper and probably said and did things which they now probably regret. The case brought by the present petitioner ended in acquittal while the petitioner was convicted. The judgment is almost unintelligible and it was necessary for Mr. Basu to show me the evidence before I could understand what the case really was. The point of law urged in support of the Rule is that in deciding this case the Magistrate used evidence given in the other case. That he did so is apparent from the judgment and it appears from his explanation that he thought that he was. entitled to do so. That alone is sufficient to make it impossible to uphold this conviction. Then again, in disbelieving one of the defence witnesses he allowed himself to be influenced by an unfavourable opinion which he had formed of the petitioner when she was an accused before him in some other case in which I am told she was acquitted. The only practical question is whether I should order a re-trial. As I have already said, it is impossible to believe that both parties were not to blame in this regrettable incident. No serious damage was done and I am not prepared to send the case to be tried over again. The Rule is made absolute. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine if paid will be refunded.