Order.- This revision involves an interesting point whether interference by this Court will be justified, where a learned Magistrate holding a preliminary enquiry into an alleged offence under section 395, Indian Penal Code, has come to the conclusion that no such offence triable exclusively by a Court of session was involved, and has hence framed charges under sections 379 and 447, Indian Penal Code, and is himself proceedings to further dispose of the case according to law. Undoubtedly the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate is justified as a matter of strict form, and it is sufficient to refer to section 207-A (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amended Code), which permits such a procedure. But the more difficult question is whether, assuming that there is more material to show that two views are possible upon the question of the applicability of section 392, Indian Penal Code or 395, Indian Penal Code, to the facts, this Court ought to interfere in what is really a discharge by implication. My attention has been drawn to certain observations of Ramaswami, J., in Satyam v. State1, where the learned Judge points out that in regard to an offence exclusively triable by a sessions Court, the Magistrate ought not ordinarily to take upon himself the duty and responsibility of discharging the accused because he considers that the ingredients of that offence are not established because this really amounts to clutching at jurisdiction. But a distinction between sections 379 and 392, Indian Penal Code, has always been a fine one, a question depending very largely upon the application of the words “if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint”. The learned District Magistrate before whom the matter was originally taken up in revision, declined to interfere, because he thought that the committing Magistrate was not patently in error with respect to the application of the law to the facts of the present case. I think that interference by this Court at this stage in criminal revision is not at all called for, under the circumstances. I think that interference by this Court at this stage in criminal revision is not at all called for, under the circumstances. Accordingly, I do not propose to interfere upon this alleged discharge by implication of the accused with reference to the charge under section 395, Indian Penal Code. But it seems to me to be equally clear that, prima facie the police considered the case after investigation, to be sufficiently grave to be dealt with as a preliminary register case after filing a charge-sheet under section 395, Indian Penal Code. This implies, that in case there is a conviction even for a lesser offence either under section 379, Indian Penal Code or section 447, Indian Penal Code, or both, the concerned offender or offenders must be dealt with in an adequately deterrent manner. Hence it is clearly desirable, that the case should be tried from this stage onward, the charges having been framed, by a First Glass Magistrate of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, I direct the transfer of the case from the file of the learned Sub-Magistrate to the file of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ariyalur, for disposal according to law. In the interests of the accused, I desire to observe that these remarks do not contain any implication whatever upon the actual merits, or the extent to which the prosecution evidence justifies a conviction of any or of all the accused in the case. P.R.N. ----- Case transferred to Sub-divisional Magistrate.