JUDGMENT George Knox, J.
1. This revision is immediately connected with the previous case (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 288 of 1919) in which I have just passed orders. The prayer is that an order be issued directing that no further proceedings be taken against the petitioners on the complaint now alleged against them, In the case Queen-Empress v. Umedan A.W.N. (1895), 86 this Court pointed out that there was nothing in the law which prohibited a Magistrate, who had dismissed a complaint under Section 203, from reviving proceedings should he, upon a second complaint, consider that there was good ground for proceeding against an accused person. We pointed out that there might be great fear of miscarriage of justice if a complainant, who had made a hasty complaint and had had his complaint dismissed, found himself prevented upon the discovery of good evidence from taking further proceedings against an accused person. I was a party to that judgment and it was my intention to make it clear that while a Magistrate who had dismissed a complaint could upon a second complaint revive proceedings, but that his action should be limited by considering that there was good ground for the second proceeding that he entertained. It was never my intention that a Magistrate should, after dismissing a complaint, take the complaint over again simply because it was filed before him. Before passing such an order he should consider whether there was good ground for proceeding against the accused person, otherwise there might be no limit to an accused person being harassed a second time. The complaint has been filed and has been accepted by the learned Magistrate. I have every confidence that he will proceed carefully with the hearing of the case and not be led to the conclusion that this Court is giving him any directions as regards its trial. If he finds from fresh evidence or any other reason that there are good grounds for the complaint, he will no doubt proceed to pass proper orders upon the same. If on the other hand he finds that the matter before him in this case simply rests where it is in the previous case, he will again take proper action and determine the case in any manner authorised by law. I decline to interfere, as I hold that interference in interlocutory proceedings is generally a mistake.