( 1 ) THE learned Judicial Magistrate, on receipt of the complaint on transfer from the District Magistrate on 20. 11. 1979 thought it fit to postpone issue of process and to inquire into the case himself under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, after taking about 16 months to make such inquiry, ultimately dismissed the complaint on 25. 3. 1981 under section 203 of the Code, finding no sufficient materials to proceed further. On an application filed by the complainant praying for revival of the case, the learned Magistrate registered the same as a separate Misc. Case on 23-7-1981, issued notice on the accused-opposite party and on the appearance of the later handed over a copy of the application to him for filing objection. If any and on receipt of his written reply on 18. 3. 1982, heard the parties on 26. 4. 1982 and finding that the 0. p. has no objection to the application, ordered that the dismissed case stands accordingly revived and the dismissed case, therefore, stood revived about 13 months after the same was dismissed. And then, after proceeding with the revived complaint for about 7 months, the learned Magistrate found that this case was restored through inadvertence and ordered that further proceedings thus stand closed. The complainant, having felt aggrieved with this fate of his complaint after a long lapse of about 3 years, has moved this court in revision. I very much regret that it took the learned Magistrate about 16 months to decide that there was no case for issuance of process and to dismiss the complaint and then another period of about l3months to revive the dismissed complaint and thereafter again a period of about 7 months to realize that the revival was wrong, and an examination of the records of the Magistrate has convinced me that with a little more care and concern the learned Magistrate could have effected a much earlier termination of the proceedings in his Court. But such unhappy handling of the case notwithstanding, I am afraid that it will not be possible for me to intervene in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction in this case and the revisional application will have, to be dismissed.

( 2 ) A dismissal of a complaint under section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, does not bar a fresh complaint. No judicial authority is necessary for this proposition as the statutory authority therefore is provided in the Explanation to Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that being the Code, still, applying in Sikkim. While Section 401, incorporating inter alia the principle of asteroids acquit, provides that a person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for and offence an acquitted of such offence, shall while such acquittal remains in force, not be able to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which he might have been charged or convicted the Explanation added thereto clearly provides that the dismissal of a complaint is not acquittal for the purpose of this Section. That would have been the position even without the Explanation as the section bars a fresh trial only when a person has once been tried, while a complaint is dismissed under section 203 before the commencement of any trial, which can only begin after, the process is issued and the accused appears. A fresh complaint after the dismissal of an earlier one under section 203 can not also obviously attract the bar under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution, which embodies the principle nemo his vexari and prohibits prosecution and punishment of a person for the same offence more than once, because when a complaint is dismissed under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the issuance of any process, none is prosecuted or punished thereby. In fact there is a myriad of precedents for the view that the dismissal of a complaint under section 203 does not, as it, in view of the provisions of section 403 and the Expla