This section came up for discussion in Karumian v. Kedar Lal, 50 Cr. L. J. 699 : (A. I. R. (36) 1949 Pat. 344). Kedar Lal (the complainant) had been permitted to conduct the prosecution. During the course of the trial, the parties came to an understanding and the counsel, appearing for Kedar Lal, expressed that his client desired that the prosecution be withdrawn. The trying Magistrate sought the permission of the District Magistrate, who ultimately refused and the revision above referred was the consequence. Discussing the propriety of the counsel for Kedar Lal applying for permission to withdraw, Mahabir Prasad J., feeling a doubt on the interpretation to be put on the words “any such officer” in sub-s. (2) of S. 495 referred the case to a Bench. The Bench held that those words included only the officers ‘specified in sub-s. (1)’ since the words ‘any such officer’ at the beginning of sub-s. (a) ‘immediately follow’ the enumeration of ....