Stephen and N.R. Chatterjea, JJ.
1. In this case an order for farther inquiry was made under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A Rule has been granted on two grounds: in the first place, that the further inquiry was ordered against the petitioner No. 3 when no complaint had been made against him. There were two persons accused and the petitioner No. 3 was their master. On the question of the further inquiry coming on, the Additional District Magistrate saw fit to order that the petitioner No. 3 should be joined with the others. This he had no authority to do without proper complaint or other regular process being issued in respect of the petitioner No. 3. He has made a mistake in joining the petitioner No. 3 as though he were a party in a civil case without any of the proceedings prescribed by law. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute as regards the petitioner No. 3.
2. The order has been made as against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in their absence and without any notice to them. The Magistrate in his explanation says, perfectly correctly, that it is not necessary that any party should be heard in a case of revision by reason of Section 440 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That, however, is not relevant to the present case which is a special matter to be proceeded with under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as to which the Court has laid down in the case of Giridhari Marwari v. Emperor (1908) 12 C.W.N. 822 that such proceedings must not be without previous notice to the accused. The Rule, as regards the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 also, is made absolute. The Rule is, therefore, made absolute and the order set aside.