JUDGMENT : KNOX, J.:— This is an application for revisiou of an order passed by the Court of Session at Azamgarh, whereby the Sessions Judge confirmed an order passed by the District Magistrate of Azamgar ??? dismissing a complaint brought by one Dukhi against Shifayat-ul-lah, a Sub-Inspector of Police. Three reasons are urged why the order of the learned District Magistrate should be set aside. The first is that no formal transfer of the case took place from the Court of the Magistrate of the first class to the Court of the District Magistrate. Upon referring to the file of the case I find that the complaint was instituted in the Court of a Deputy Magistrate. 2. The Deputy Magistrate examined the complainant and on the very same day sent the case to the District Magistrate. As the District Magistrate says he transferred the case, I take his order to be an order passed under section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the supposition is correct the Magistrate when transferring the case should have placed on the record his reasons for the transfer. The reasons for the transfer are obvious. The Government of these Provinces, by an order passed on the 13th of September 1902, to be found in the Manual of Government Orders, Department VI, p. 104, has directed Magistrates to withdraw from subordir nate Magistrates under section 528, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure all cases in which a complaint has been made that a Police Officer has committed an offence under the Penal Code. Although the reasons should have been recorded, [agree with the learned Judge in holding that the mere omission to record them., though an irregularity, does not invalidate the subsequent proceedings. 3. The second reason urged is that no notice was given to the complainant to show cause against the transfer. I know no law requiring notice to be given. 4. Lastly, the Magistrate is said to have acted irregularly and illegally in calling for a private report from the accused, and my attention has been called to the case of Baidiga Nath Singh v. Muspratt (I.L.R., 14 Calc, 141). This same point was taken before the Magistrate and he has dealt with it in his order of the 2nd of October 1905. This same point was taken before the Magistrate and he has dealt with it in his order of the 2nd of October 1905. It is true that the Magistrate did call upon the Sub-Inspector concerned to report what he knew about the complainant and to send up all papers concerning it. The Magistrate placed the report, when received, upon the record and he has shown that he looked upon this order in the light of an order to show cause why process should not issue against him upon the complaint pre-ferred by Dukhi. The Magistrate appears to have dealt with the complaint carefully and to have acted very properly and discreetly in eventually dismissing it after inquiry made under section 203. T see no reason for interfering. I dismiss the application.