1. In this case it appears that, on an investigation made by the police in respect of what may be termed looting a house, one person who could alone be apprehended, Jagira, was sent in for trial and the case was made over to a Subordinate Magistrate who discharged Jagira. The others who were charged in that case could not be arrested and were, therefore, not placed on their trial. On a representation to the District Magistrate by the District Superintendent of Police, he has thought proper to issue warrants against these other persons in order that they might also be tried. The jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to make this order has been questioned on the rule granted by us. Cognizance was taken of the offence on the police report and the case was made over to a Subordinate Magistrate, and so long as the case connected with that offence remained with the Subordinate Magistrate no other Magistrate was competent to deal with it; the ease has never been withdrawn by the District Magistrate for trial by himself, so that he could properly pass an order directing proceedings to be taken against other persons. Application for the warrants against other persons accused of that offence should have been made to the Magistrate before whom the case was and to no other Magistrate. The District Magistrate in his explanation in answer to this rule, seems to think that the case only as against Jagira was made over to the Subordinate Magistrate for trial. But that is not so. The case regarding the offence charged alleged to have been committed as shown in the police report was before that Magistrate, and he was alone competent, on the police report, to proceed against other persons concerned in that offence if he thought proper to do so; and no further orders from the District Magistrate were necessary or indeed could be passed so long as the case remained in his Court. The orders of the District Magistrate of the 12th August last are set aside as without jurisdiction, the rule being made absolute.