Second complaint maintainable after discharge where prior discharge is not an acquittal and no bar to Magistrate's inquiry exists.

A discharge in a prior complaint does not amount to an acquittal and therefore does not trigger autrefois acquit. A Magistrate retains jurisdiction to consider a subsequent complaint on the same facts, subject to judicial discretion and the circumstances of the earlier discharge. On the stated facts, the first matter was discharged because the complainant and pleader were absent, and the second complaint was filed the next day. There was no legal bar to continuing the inquiry, and the second complaint was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of a second complaint on the same facts after the accused has been discharged in the first complaint.

Analysis: A discharge does not operate as an acquittal and does not attract the defence of autrefois acquit. The matter remains open for judicial inquiry, and jurisdiction continues to vest in the Magistrate to consider a subsequent complaint, subject to due judicial discretion. On the facts, the first discharge was made because the complainant and his pleader were absent, and the second complaint was filed the next day, so there was no legal bar to proceeding with the inquiry.

Conclusion: A second complaint was maintainable, and the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in proceeding to inquire into it.

---