1. This Rule was granted to the petitioner calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the commitment of the petitioner should not be set aside, on the ground that the trial of the accused upon exactly the same facts upon which he was acquitted in a previous trial was bad in law. We asked the Deputy Legal Remembrancer to assist us in this matter and he has shown cause. After hearing the parties we think that the case clearly falls within the purview of Section 403 (4), Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was tried by the Magistrate under Section 465, Indian Penal Code, and acquitted. He was there...charged on exactly the same facts, namely, with the same forgery of the same document which is now alleged by the prosecution to be a valuable security and the offence with regard to which will fall under Section 467, Indian Penal Code. The illustrations to Section 403 show that a person acquitted or convicted in such circumstances may be charged with and tried for the other offence. The case of King-Emperor v. Ayyan 24 M. 675 : 2 Weir 699 does not really assist the petitioner in any way; on the contrary, it is against him. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether the first trial was wholly void or not, or whether the document is in fact, a valuable security falling within Section 467 Indian Penal Code. As to this it is sufficient to say that the prosecution allege it to be so, and that is the offence for which the petitioner will now be tried. We accordingly discharge the Rule.