JUDGMENT P.L. Bhargava. J. 1. This is an application in revision by Bishwanath, Parasnath and Bam Nihal, against whom Bansi had filed a complaint, charging them with offences punishable under Sections 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint, recorded the statements of the complainant, the Medical Officer and one more witness. Thereafter. he found that there was no case u/s 307, I.P.C. and that it Was at the most a case u/s 323, I. P.C. "which is tribal, exclusively by a Panchayati Adalat". 'Accordingly, he directed, that the file be sent to the Tahsildar, Basti, so that he might transfer the case to the Panchayati Adalat having jurisdiction over the matter. 2. Against the Magistrate's order, the complainant filed a revision in the court of the District* Magistrate of Baati, who was . of opinion that, even if there was no case u/s 307. I. P. O, it was a "pretty difficult case u/s 323, I. P,C, and the Panchayati Adalat can not inflict proper sentence in cases like this". He, therefore, allowed the revision and remanded the case to the Magistrate concerned "for further enquiry and trial according to law". He also directed that the Magistrate should record the entire evidence and then find whether it was a case under Sections 323 and 307, I.P.C. ; and that even if it be a case u/s 323, I. P. C" he should try the same. 3. In this revision, in the first place, it has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the District Magistrate was, no doubt, entitled to call for and examine the record of this case, u/s 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but he acted illegally in remanding the case for further enquiry. In my opinion, there is considerable force in this argument. The learned District Magistrate having called for examination the record, u/s 435 of the Code, after examining the same, u/s 436 of the Code he could direct any subordinate Magistrate to make further enquiry into any complaint which had bean dismissed u/s 203 or Sub-section (3) of Section 304, or into the case of any person accused of the offence, who had been discharged, after allowing him, an opportunity of showing cause why such direction be not made. That being not the case, ha could make no such direction in the present case The District Magistrate might have acted under Sections 437 or 433 of the Code ; but he did not. There is no other provision in the Code under which the District Magistrate might have exercised revisional powers, which he purports to have done. 4. In the nest place, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the offence punishable u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code being exclusively tribal by the Panchayati Adalat, and the Magistrate having made an order for transfer u/s 56 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand the case for trial of that offence by the Magistrate. u/s 52 of the Act, the offence u/s 323, I. P. C, is cognizable by a Panchayati Adalat, and, u/s 56 of the Act, the Magistrate Was bound to transfer the case to the Adalat when it appeared to him that the case was tribal by the Adalat. The order being perfectly legal, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere with it in revision on the ground that the case was "pretty difficult" and the Adalat would not be able to "inflict proper sentence". There is a provision for such cases in Section 58 of the Act, which lays dawn : Beturn of complaint.-If at any time it appears to a Panchayati Adalat- (a) that it has no jurisdiction to try any case before it, or (b) that the offence is one for which it cannot award adequate punishment, or (c) that the case is of such nature or complexity that it should be tried by a regular court; it shall return the complaint to the complainant directing him to file it before the sub-Divisional Magistrate, having jurisdiction to try such case. 5. There is, no doubt, a provision. in Section 85 of the Act for cancellation of the jurisdiction of the Adalat in certain circumstances; bat even that power is vested in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who also exercises revisional powers, u/s 89 of the Act, in cases tried by the Adalat. Consequently, the District Magistrate's order remanding the case for "trial" 'even if it was a case u/s 323, I. P. C., is unwarranted by law. 6. Consequently, the District Magistrate's order remanding the case for "trial" 'even if it was a case u/s 323, I. P. C., is unwarranted by law. 6. In this view of the matter the order passed by the learned District Magistrate cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I allow this revision and set aside the order, dated December 30, 1949, passed Pay the District Magistrate remanding the case for further inquiry and trial. The case Will now be transferred to the Panchayati Adalat having jurisdiction over the matter for disposal according to law.