JUDGMENT Stuart, J.
1. Criminal Revisions Nos. 526 and 527 have been put together and have been argued together but they involve absolutely distinct matters which must be carefully separated. What occurred was this. Muhammad Yar Khan and others, tenants of the village of Mahson in the Basti District, instituted a complaint against Tarsu Beg, Rustam Bari and others on the allegations that Tarsu Beg and Rustam Bari, who are servants of the Raja of Basti, attacked their village on a certain day and committed dacoity and arson. Tarsu Beg put in a cross-complaint under two heads. In the first place he stated that he had been assaulted and wrongfully confined by the complainants in the dacoity and arson case, and, secondly, he sought to prosecute the complainants in the dacoity and arson case for lodging a false complaint against him. Rustam Bari put in a cross-complaint in which he charged the complainants in the dacoity case with having illegally seized cattle belonging to the Raja, and added in the same way as Tarsu Beg had added, a complaint of a false charge.
2. The Magistrate who tried these cases found that the charges of dacoity and arson were not established and discharged the accused, but he refused to investigate the complaints of Tarsu Beg and Rustam Bari on the ground that they had not obtained sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the complaint as to the false charge. His orders were upheld by the Sessions Judge.
3. The law on the subject is this. No complaint, the institution of which requires sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can be entertained unless that sanction exists. But when a complaint combines such a complaint with a complaint which does not require sanction, the Court must investigate the complaint which does not require sanction while refusing to investigate the complaint which requires it. This is what the Magistrate failed to do. I set aside his order refusing to investigate Tarsu Beg's complaint that simple hurt had been caused to him and that he had been wrongfully confined while upholding his order refusing to entertain the remaining complaint. It appears that he directed an investigation under Section 202 but then refused to hear Tarsu Beg's witnesses. He will now continue the investigation under Section 202 and pass orders according to the law. I allow, therefore, Criminal Revision No. 526 to that extent. Revision No. 527 must, however, fail entirely for although the same principles apply there is a defect in the complaint itself. Under the provisions of Section 20 Act I of 1871 the complaint should have been made witfcin ten days of the alleged offence. It was not made till later. I, therefore, reject the Revision application No. 527.