Lilamoy Ghosh, J. - (1.) A proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. was drawn up by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Basirhat. After it proceeded to some extent, by order dated 5.3.86, the learned Magistrate filed the case on the ground that none was present on call and no tadbir was done. Thereafter, by order dated 19.4.86, on the prayer of the first party, the learned Magistrate revived the case, supposed to be on the basis of the order of the Hon'ble High Court. This order dated 19.4.86 and the subsequent proceedings have been challenged in this revisional application.
(2.) Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 19.4.86 is patently illegal because after once dropping the proceeding he could not have any power to revive the same.
(3.) Mr. Gopal Ch. Mukherjee, the learned advocate appears for the opposite parties Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. None appears for the rest of the O. Ps. Mr. Mukherjee has submitted that the order dropping the proceeding itself was not only wrong, but without jurisdiction. That being the position, according to him, the learned Magistrate was quite competent to revive the case, cancelling the earlier order of filing the case.;