Order: This is a reference by the District Magistrate of West Godavari under the following circumstances. A charge-sheet was filed against one Manikonda Satyanarayana by the Sub-Inspector of Railway Police, Rajahmundry, under section 235, para.(2) and section 239, Indian Penal Code, before the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Kowur. The Stationary Sub-Magistrate took the case on file as a P. R. Case and enquired into it. Finding that the evidence does not disclose an offence under section 235(2), Indian Penal Code, he submitted the proceedings to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kowur, under section 346(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate acted on the evidence already recorded and framed a charge instead of having a de novo trial. It is pointed out by the District Magistrate that this procedure is unwarranted and that a Magistrate acting under sub-section(2) of section 346, Criminal Procedure Code, has to try the case from the beginning. It looks to me that the procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is illegal. When the sub-section (2) speaks of the Magistrate trying the case himself it means that the Magistrate should try it from the beginning. The general rule is that a Magistrate who tries a case should try it from the beginning and the only exception to it is the one engrafted in section 350 Criminal Procedure Code. Since section 350, Criminal . Procedure Code, has no application to this case, as the Magistrate is trying a case transferred to him under section 346(2), Criminal Procedure Code, he has to try the case de novo. There is abundant authority for this position. In re Ummar Hajee1, a Bench of the Madras High Court remarked that exhibition of witnesses’ deposition in the previous trial, without actually examining them de novo, was irregular and the consent of the accused did not cure it. This ruling was followed by Krishnan, J.,. In re China Venku Naidu1, of the same Court who applied the principle to proceedings under section 346, Criminal Procedure Code and held that it was not competent for a Magistrate acting under sub-section(2) to section 346, Criminal Procedure Code, to hear arguments, on the evidence taken by the Magistrate, who transferred the case under section 346, clause 1. This view is shared by the Allahabad High Court in Pannalal v. State2. To the same effect is the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sasti Gopal Satnui v. Haridas Bagdi3. This view is shared by the Allahabad High Court in Pannalal v. State2. To the same effect is the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sasti Gopal Satnui v. Haridas Bagdi3. It is unnecessary to multiply citation. Suffice it to say, that a Magistrate acting under section 346(2) has to try the case from the beginning and he cannot act on the evidence already recorded, prior to-the transfer of the case. The procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not the one prescribed by the Code. The proceedings are therefore quashed and he is directed to hold the trial de novo. The reference is answered accordingly. D.L.N. ----- Proceedings quashed and directions to hold the trial de novo, issued.