King, J.

1. The petitioner contends that the order of the 1st Class Bench Magistrates Court, Conjeeveram, dated 31st October 1933, discharging the respondent in contrary to law. The petitioner admitted during his examination as P.W. 1 in that Court that:

for the same offence the accused was charged in E.C. No. 378 of 1933, and the order of the Court dated 3rd March 1933 which decided that case showed that the accused had been acquitted. The Court held that the accused was not liable to be tried again for the same offence in view of Section 403, Criminal P.C. and the ruling reported in Ramanujachariar v. Kailasam Iyer 1925 Mad. 1067.

2. It is now contended that the offence is not the same because the subsequent complaint alleged a subsequent notice to remove the same encroachment; except that the notice in the present case bears a subsequent date all the facts alleged in the present case are exactly the same-as those alleged in the previous case of the same year which ended in acquittal. The question for decision is whether the issue of subsequent notice avoids the bar imposed by Section 403, Criminal P.C. This question has been answered in the affirmative by Pakenham Walsh, J., i