1. The order of the High Court, dated 28th January 1896, on which the appellant relies, was passed mainly on the ground that there had been
undue delay in making the application for transfer. Section 487, Criminal Procedure Code, was not referred to in the petition then before the High
Court, nor in the order of the High Court, and was apparently rot considered.
2. On the merits we think that it is impossible to say that an order whether original or appellate granting or refusing or revoking sanction u/s 195,
Criminal Procedure Code, is not a ""Judicial proceeding"" as defined in Section 4 of the Act, and looking to the wide terms ""brought under his
notice"" used in Section 487, we are of opinion that the Magistrate who declined to revoke the sanction was precluded from himself trying the case.
3. The Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in ordering a new trial. We dismiss this appeal
