Curgenven, J.

1. The petitioner is the complainant. He filed a complaint against five persons which was taken on file against accused 2 to 5 as voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, and against 1st accused, who is a pleader, as abettor of that offence, under Sections 325 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The Town Sub-Magistrate of Trichinopoly who tried the case discharged the 1st accused on the ground that he had not been identified, and framed a charge against the re maining accused of the offence stated. The complainant then applied to the Sessions Judge of Trichinopoly to revise the order discharging the 1st accused and the application was granted, the learned Sessions Judge directing further inquiry which was to include affording several of the prosecution witnesses an opportunity of identifying the 1st accused. In Criminal Revision Case No. 952 of 1928, Reilly, J., refused to interfere with this order.

2. Meanwhile, as I have said, a charge had been framed against the other accused and the first prosecution witness had been further cross-examined after charge. The question then arises as to the correct procedure to be adopted,--whether, as the p