JUDGMENT Harries, C.J. - This is a Reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Sylhet recommending that a certain order of transfer made by a Magistrate is illegal and should be set aside. The accused persons were charged with offences of cheating the Assam Government. A Special Magistrate was appointed by the Assam Government to hear this case and this Magistrate sat in Sylhet. 2. It appears that the Assam Government promulgated certain orders and acting upon those orders the learned Special Magistrate, sitting in Sylhet, transferred the case for further hearing to Shillong. He directed that the case should be heard there before him. 3. The accused, being aggrieved with that order moved the Sessions Judge of Sylhet in revision. On 14th August, 1947, the learned Sessions Judge made a Reference to this Court recommending that the orders of the learned Magistrate were illegal and ultra vires and of no effect, and that they should be set aside. 4. It is to be observed that at the time the learned Magistrate made his order and at the date of the letter of Reference, Sylhet was part of Assam and as such was within the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. As a result of the findings of the Boundary Commission, Sylhet became part of East Bengal and therefore this Court has no longer jurisdiction over it. The question now arises whether this Court can hear this Reference. 6. There is no question of the Reference being pending in this Court on the "appointed day" that is on the day when East Bengal came into existence. As I have said, the referring letter was only signed by the learned Sessions Judge on 14th August, 1947, and it did not reach this Court until long after the "appointed day". It is clear therefore that both the Courts that passed orders in this case are now outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 7. It has been urged by the learned Advocate on behalf of the Crown that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the Reference and he has relied upon sec. 4 of the Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947. It is clear therefore that both the Courts that passed orders in this case are now outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 7. It has been urged by the learned Advocate on behalf of the Crown that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the Reference and he has relied upon sec. 4 of the Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, 1947. Sec. 4 of that Order is in these terms :-- Notwithstanding the creation of certain new Provinces and the transfer of certain territories from the Province of Assam to the Province of East Bengal by the Indian Independence Act, 1947.-- (1) All proceedings pending immediately before the appointed day in any Civil or Criminal Court (other than a High Court) in the Province of Bengal, the Punjab or Assam shall be continued in that Court as if the said Act had not been passed, and that Court shall continue to have for the purposes of the said proceedings all the jurisdiction and powers which it had immediately before the appointed day; (2) any appeal or application for revision in respect of any proceedings so pending in any such Court shall lie in the Court which would have Appellate, or as the case may be, revisional, jurisdiction over that Court if the proceeding were instituted in that Court after the "appointed day". 8. What is being challenged in this proceeding is an order of a learned Magistrate transferring a cases. That order was made before the "appointed day". The application for revision was actually heard before the "appointed day" and the District Judge of Sylhet signed the letter of Reference on the day before the "appointed day". As I have said on the "appointed day" namely, 15th August, 1947, Sylhet must be regarded as part of Eastern Bengal. 9. It seems quite clear that this Court can have no jurisdiction to hear this Reference. The criminal proceeding must be regarded as pending in the Court of a Magistrate in Sylhet until the legality of this transfer order is decided. That being so, it is clear that under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 4 of the Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, the revision would lie not to this Court, but to the High Court of Eastern Bengal. 10. That being so, it is clear that under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 4 of the Indian Independence (Legal Proceedings) Order, the revision would lie not to this Court, but to the High Court of Eastern Bengal. 10. It was argued that the proceedings had ceased to be pending in Sylhet by reason of the order of transfer made by the Magistrate and it was contended that it was immaterial whether that order was legal or not. The argument was that even an illegal order of transfer put an end to proceedings in Sylhet. An illegal order of transfer can not remove a case from one Court to another. If the order of transfer is illegal the case in the eye of the law remains in the Court from which it was illegally transferred. It appears to me that the only view that can be taken of this matter is that this case must be deemed to be pending in Sylhet until the legality of that order of transfer is decided. Quite clearly this Court can not now deal with the Reference, because if it did, it would be acting under its revisional powers contrary to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 4 of the Order to which I have made Reference. 11. It was further urged that this Court could deal with this matter because the learned Sessions Judge of Sylhet was incompetent to consider the matter at all. The argument was that as the Magistrate had transferred the case himself to Shillong, any aggrieved person would have to apply to the Session Judge of the Assam Valley Districts in whose jurisdiction Shillong is situate. 12. It appears to me that there is no force in this argument; the order sought to be revised was made by a Magistrate in Sylhet. Quite obviously, the only Sessions Judge who could deal with the matter was the Sessions Judge in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate's Court was when the order was made. It appears to me that, however the matter is looked at, this Court can have no jurisdiction and that being so, we make no order on this Reference. 13. I wish to make it clear that I express no opinion upon the legality of the Magistrate's order or the orders of the Government upon which he acted. 14. Certificate under sec. 13. I wish to make it clear that I express no opinion upon the legality of the Magistrate's order or the orders of the Government upon which he acted. 14. Certificate under sec. 205 of the Government of India Act, 1935, is granted in this case. The further records need not be sent up to this Court. Clough, J. I agree