SHIVANUGRAH NARAIN, J.

1. Petitioner Indrajit Bahadur Singh was at the relevant time an officer of Dena Bank Ltd., Patna while Shri Chandra Kant Pritam Lal Mehta, opposite party No. 2 was the Branch Manager thereof. On 18.6.1971 opposite party No.2 sent a written report to the Officer–incharge Kotwali Police Station alleging that the petitioner had participated in the defalcation of two sums of Rs. 8000/- and Rs. 7100/- respectively which were withdrawn illegally from the Bank. In view of the contention raised, it is not necessary to set out the allegations in any further detail. The police after investigation submitted what is to be popular further called a final report holding the allegations not proved. On behalf of opposite party No. 2 a protest petition was filed. On behalf of the petitioner a counter petition was filed praying that the protest petition be rejected. By his order dated 22.11.1972 the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna saying that he would not accept the final report directed that the informant, meaning opposite party No. 2 should appear before the Court for his examination on solemn affirmation on 25.11.1972. On 25.11.1972 consequent upon that order the opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter called the complainant') was examined on solemn affirmation and the learned Magistrate after calling for the case diary, supervision note etc. by his order dated 17.3.1973 directed Shri Lala Agam Prasad, Magistrate, First Class to hold judicial inquiry into the complaint. The inquiry report of the Magistrate Shri Lala Agam Prasad was put up before the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on 17.7.1974, who directed that the case be put up before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31.7.1974. On 31.7.1974 the complainant was absent and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna before whom the case had come up passed the following order:–

"Seen the report of the enquiring officer. He has reported that the complainant has failed to make out a prima-facie case.

Case called out several times. None responds on behalf of the complainant. Hence the final report is accepted, the protest cum complaint petition is dismissed and the accused persons are discharged."

On 2.8.1974 the complainant filed a petition alleging that inspite of his efforts the complainant's counselor the counsel's clerk could not know about the date fixed in the case and therefore, he could not appear on 31.7.1974 and that the inquiry report showing that no prima-facie case bad been made out was not correct and prayed that the order dated 31.7.1974 be recalled and the protest cum complain t petition be revived and heard on merits. Allowing this application on 2.8.1974 the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the following order:–

"Complainant files a petition for recalling the order dated 31.7.1974 and reviving the protest-cum-complaint petition. Heard in view of the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1962, Patna 316, tile complaint petition should be revived as it was dismissed for default. Let the protest-cum-complaint petition be revived and be numbered as a complaint case and put up on 12.8.1974 for hearing on the petition against the report of the E.O."

The petitioner, the person complained against being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 2.8.1974 has come up in revision before this Court and prays that the aforesaid order reviving the complaint petition be quashed.

2. Mr. Gorakh Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner first contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to recall the order dated 31.7.1974 dismissing the complaint and to revive the complaint. This contention is plainly misconceived and is in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar vs. Ranjan Sarkar, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 876. Kapur, J, who spoke for the majority of the Supreme. Court in that case observed as follows:–

"An order of dismissal under S. 203, Criminal Procedure Code, is however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same f