1. This is an appeal by the Local Government under Section 417, Criminal P.C., against an order of acquittal passed by a Special Magistrate appointed under the provisions of Act 12 of 1932 of the Bengal Legislative Council. A preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that the appeal is incompetent. Mr. Khundkar has argued that the wording of Section 417 is sufficiently wide to cover the present case. It is quite clear that an accused person convicted by a Special Magistrate could have no appeal apart from the special provision. Section 404 provides that no appeal shall lie, except as provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. There are no special Magistrates under the Code and there is no provision in Ch. 7 for an appeal against the conviction by such a Magistrate; for example, it would not be possible to say whether such an appeal, would lie to the District Magistrate, to the Court of Session or to this Court Mr. Khundkar has therefore argued that while it is necessary to provide specifically for an appeal by an accused person it is unnecessary to do so in the case of an appeal by the Local Government under Section 417, because the section does so by its own terms. It is unnecessary for us to decide this point, because in our judgment the present case is concluded by Section 5 of Act 24 of 1932 passed by the Indian Legislature.
2. On this point Mr. Khundkar has attempted to argue that an acquittal is not an order or sentence. In our opinion, it would be impossible to uphold such a contention; but in my case, the section goes on to say that no Court shall have jurisdiction of any kind in respect of any proceedings of a Special Magistrate, save as provided in the Local Act as supplemented by this Act. It is therefore clear that this appeal is in competent under this section and we therefore dismiss it.
3. I agree.