JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition to revise an order of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack on appeal, maintaining the conviction of the Petitioners under Sections 426, 447, 823 and 379 I.P.C. and the sentence of fine passed on them by Shri M.U. Shariff, Magistrate, II Class, Jajpur. 2. Mr. A.K. Das, on behalf of the Petitioner, however, challenged the legality of the entire proceeding before Mr. Shariff on the ground that cognizance was illegally taken against Petitioners Rudra Charan Biswal and Pitambar Biswal. For the purpose of appreciating this argument, it is necessary to state the following facts. In the original complaint petition filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 18th August 1953 all the five Petitioners and one Lokenath Biswal (since dead) were named as accused persons and the offences that they were said to have committed were described as offences under Sections 323, 352, 379, 447, 426 and 504 I.P.C.. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate by his order dated the 13th August 1953, summoned only accused 1 to 4, namely, Guru Charan Biswal, Purushottam Biswal, Lokenath Biswal and Krishna Chandra Biswal, u/s 823 I.P.C. The case Was first transferred to the file of Shri A.C.S. Rao, Magistrate II Class for disposal and this latter officer after framing charges under Sections 426, 823 and 379 I.P.C. against the aforesaid four accused persons left the place on transfer. Then, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on the 22nd June 1954, recalled the case to his file and transferred it to the file of Shri M.U. Shariff, Magistrate, II Class for disposal. That Magistrate entered io the order-sheet on that date, that the accused persons wanted de novo trial. Then, on the 20th July 1954 he examined three witnesses on the side of the prosecution and thought that the other two persons, namely, Rudra Charan and Pitambar whose names were disclosed in the complaint petition, should also he summoned. He Issued process for their appearance under Sections 352, 143, 426 and 447 I.P.C. 3. Mr. Then, on the 20th July 1954 he examined three witnesses on the side of the prosecution and thought that the other two persons, namely, Rudra Charan and Pitambar whose names were disclosed in the complaint petition, should also he summoned. He Issued process for their appearance under Sections 352, 143, 426 and 447 I.P.C. 3. Mr. Das urged that when it was the function of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide whether processes should issue against all or some of the accused persons mentioned in the petition of complaint and that when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate decided to issue summons u/s 323 I.P.C. only against the first four accused persons, namely, Guru Charan Biswal, Purushottam Biswal, Lokanath Biswal and Krishna Chandra Biswal, the transferee Magistrate (Mr. Shariff) had no jurisdiction to summon the remaining two persons mentioned in the petition of complaint, viz Rudra Charan Biswal and Pitambar Biswal. He could, however, cite no authority in support of this view. The power of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to transfer a case to a subordinate Magistrate for enquiry or trial, is found in Section 192(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure. It clearly says that "the case" is transferred. There are a series of decisions to the effect that when an order of transfer is made u/s 192(1) without any reservation, the entire case is transferred and the transferee Magistrate Is in foil seisin of the entire Case and has jurisdiction to Issue process against those persons who are not named as accused in the original order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate taking cognizance. His discretion to frame charges in respect of offences that may be disclosed during the examination-in-chief of the witnesses is not in any way fettered by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate describing the Section under which process should issue against those persons. What is transferred is the entire case and not the case of a particular accused in respect of a particular accused in respect of a particular offence, as specified in the original order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate while taking cognizance. I may refer in this connection to Hafizar Rahman Vs. Aminal Hoque which was followed in Province of Bihar Vs. Bhim Bera and Others. See also Baksi v. M. Yunus 49. Cr.L.J. 612. No decision of any High Court taking the contrary view has been cited before me. I may refer in this connection to Hafizar Rahman Vs. Aminal Hoque which was followed in Province of Bihar Vs. Bhim Bera and Others. See also Baksi v. M. Yunus 49. Cr.L.J. 612. No decision of any High Court taking the contrary view has been cited before me. With respect, I would follow the aforesaid decisions and hold that there is no illegality in the trial of the Petitioners in the Court of Shri M.U. Shariff. The revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed