ORDER Shiv Dayal, J. This is a reference by the first Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhind, on the ground that the trial Magistrate has no jurisdiction. It appears from the report of the learned referring Judge that Krishnachandra Shashtri filed a complaint against Kalicharan, Station Officer Bhind, and Gurdayal, Head Constable under section 342 of the Penal Code in the Court of the Magistrate Second Class, Bhind who took cognisance of it. It is unnecessary to mention here what the complaint was. The accused took an objection before the trial Magistrate that he could not take cognisance of this case for he had not been specially empowered under section 190(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate admitted that he was not specially empowered but held that he was competent to try the case as there was no mala fides in taking cognisance of the case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the question of bona fides of the Magistrate did not arise, but, since he had not been specially empowered under the law, he had no jurisdiction. In my opinion, this reference is misconceived. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 190, Criminal Procedure Code empowers only such Magistrate (apart from those enumerated there), to take cognisance of an offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, as are "specially empowered in this behalf". Sub-section (2) of section 190 inter alia authorises the State Government to empower any Magistrate to take cognisance under sub-section (1), clause (a) of offences for which he may try. The Rajpramukh of Madhya Bharat in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, empowered "all judicial Magistrates (Magistrates belonging to the judicial service of the State) in Madhya Bharat to take cognisance of offences for which they may try or commit for trial." This order took effect from 1st January 1955 by Notification No. 242(V) J. 438-4-54 published in the Madhya Bharat Government gazette, dated December 23, 1954, Part I(B) at page 646. On November 1, 1956 when the new State of Madhya Pradesh came into being, this notification survived by virtue of section 119 read with section 2(b) of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. On November 1, 1956 when the new State of Madhya Pradesh came into being, this notification survived by virtue of section 119 read with section 2(b) of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. It is observed in Munnilal v. Akabai 1960 MPLJ 850 at p. 851: This section provides for a fiction and makes it very clear by the deeming provision that for the purpose of the application of the laws it must be forgotten that there has been reorganization of States. Whatever laws were in force immediately before November 1, 1956 continue to operate in the respective areas of the existing State. In other words all the laws which were in force in the territories of Madhya Bharat continue to operate in those territories notwithstanding the alteration of the territories or the formation of the new State and notwithstanding that the then existing State of Madhya Bharat does not today exist on the map of India. The Madhya Bharat notification published in the gazette dated December 23, 1954 which specially empowered all Magistrates under section 190, Criminal Procedure Code, to take cognisance continues to remain in force in the territories of the former Madhya Bharat State. On this analysis, the learned Magistrate Second Class, Bhind is empowered to take cognisance under section 190(1)(a), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Deputy Government-Advocate opposes the reference. This reference is rejected.