JUDGMENT

Bennet, J. - These are three applications in revision on behalf of five persons who have been convicted in one trial under the same Section 325, Penal Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100 fine or in default 2 months' further rigorous imprisonment by a Tahsildar Magistrate. The appeal to the Joint Magistrate was dismissed and an application in revision to the Sessions Judge has been dismissed. It is now for the fourth time that the matter has been brought before the Courts. Many grounds have been argued at considerable length. One point was that the medical witness made an examination on 18th January 1982, and another examination on 29th January 1932, 11 days later. In the first examination the medical witness discovered nine injuries, mostly contusions, which wore simple. In the second examination he discovered three grievous injuries including a fracture of the right fibula at its upper end and a fracture of the sixth left rib, the duration being about 12 days. It is obvious that the injury to the fibula was not apparent at the first examination because of the swelling on the right knee, and similarly the injury to the rib would be concealed by the swelling. No clear question was asked of the doctor as to why he did not discover the grievous injuries on the first examination. In revision it is argued that the second medical examination was "not only irregular but was a definite attempt to fabricate a case." No argument of this nature appears to have been put before the Courts below and there is nothing at all to support such a theory, nor has learned Counsel shown me any authority in any work" of medical jurisprudence which would support his view that the injuries would have been discovered on the first examination, if they had then been present. The second report states that the injuries were about 12 days old, which would mean that they were present when the first examination was made eleven days previously. The complainant apparently remained in hospital all the time until his death on the 29th February and there was a postmortem examination on 1st March 1932. The cause of death was given as old age and gradual exhaustion due to suppurating wounds on his body. His age was about 80 and it was noted that there was an abscess in front of the right knee-joint and the one operated wound on the back of the right knee and an ununited old fracture of the fourth and fifth ribs on the left side and one old ununited fracture of the right fibula near its upper end. These apparently are injuries which were caused by the assault. Owing apparently to the age of the deceased and to his sickly condition no case was put forward by the police u/s 302, or Section 304, Penal Code, and the case proceeded on complaint. The original complaint made on the 19th January 1932, after the first medical examination, was u/s 323 and on the second medical examination the charge was altered to Section 325, Penal Code. Another ground of revision urged is that the accused had been discharged three times by the trial Court and therefore a fresh complaint could not be taken cognizance of, without a revision of the order of discharge and that the subsequent trial and conviction were void in law. The previous complaints were dismissed for default. The argument was made that these complaints were disposed of u/s 247, Criminal P.C., and therefore there was an acquittal. That is incorrect because that section applies only to a summons base and the complaint being u/s 323, Penal Code, was of a warrant case. The correct section is Section 259, Criminal P.C., and that section does not refer to an acquittal but to a discharge. u/s 403, explanation, the dismissal of a complaint or the discharge of the accused is not an acquittal for the purpose of that section and therefore the dismissal of the previous complaints or the discharge of the accused is no bar to a further trial u/s 403, Criminal P.C. The fourth ground of revision was