1. This Rule is directed against an order of the District Magistrate of Goalpara, dated 12th February 1929, ordering further enquiry into the case in
which the petitioner was charged u/s 380, I.P.C. The only ground that the Magistrate found for further enquiry is stated by him in these words:
With regard to the evidence, the contention that the learned Magistrate has taken an entirely wrong view of the evidence with the result that there
has been a miscarriage of justice appears to be not without foundation. I consider it desirable in the interest of justice that the case should be
further enquired into.
2. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Magistrate and find that the trial Magistrate has carefully scanned the evidence and come to the
conclusion that the case against the accused is at least very doubtful. It is not necessary for us to discuss the evidence and the learned District
Magistrate has not done so; but we are of opinion that the view taken by the trial Magistrate cannot be held to be unjustifiable. Though it may be
conceded in view of the Pull Bench decision in Haridas Sanyal v. Saritulla [1888] 15 Cal. 608 (F.B.), that a revising Court has jurisdiction to order
a further enquiry on the same materials, a superior Court, as has been pointed out in Abdul Rashid Sheikh and Others Vs. Momtaz Sheikh, should
hesitate before exercising its powers u/s 437, Criminal P.C., to order further enquiry unless there are palpable errors in the decision of the lower
Court. The District Magistrate has not given any indication in his judgment that there have been such palpable errors in the judgment of the trial
Magistrate as to justify him in holding it to be wrong. We think that this is a case in which further enquiry is not necessary. We accordingly make
the rule absolute and set aside aside the order of the District Magistrate.
