Oldfield, J.

1. This reference, made by the Additional District Magistrate, Tanjore, at the instance of the accused in C.C. No. 365 of 1920 on the file of the Stationary Sub Magistrate, Tanjore, raises two questions (1) whether the latters procedure in examining the accused in this, a warrant case, only before charge was framed and not also after the prosecution witnesses had been recalled for further cross examination under Section 256(1) Criminal Procedure Code, was correct, (2) if it was not, whether there was an illegality vitiating the trial or an irregularity, on account of which we can in the exercise of our discretion refuse to interfere in revision.

2. The accused are not represented before us. But we have had the advantage of a very full and careful argument from the learned Public Prosecutor. The first provision relating to the examination of the accused in a warrant case is Section 253 Cr.P.C. which provides that he shall be discharged. "If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 252" that is the evidence of the prosecution witnesses "and making such examination (if any) of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary" he finds that no case has been