Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J.

1. In this case the Sub-Magistrate of Kumbakonam gave leave to the petitioner before us, one Ramakrishna Aiyar, to prosecute the respondent, a woman called Sithai Ammal under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for bringing against him a false charge of dacoity. The respondent thereupon went before Mr. Shield, who was the then District Magistrate of Tanjore, and he passed an order on the 11th September, 1923, the new Code of Criminal Procedure having come into force on the 1st of the month. The learned District Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was nothing for him to do. He was asked to revoke the sanction and he said: "I am not going to revoke the sanction, there is nothing in it." It is admitted that the complaint had been filed before the 1st of September, 1923. In that view we have found from the records it was wrong--but that being his view and he presumably not being properly instructed on the facts--he supposed that no complaint had been filed before the new statute came into operation. He first outlines the procedure relating to such a complaint and says it would be regulated by the new Code. In point of fact, as we have