JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This order shall govern Criminal Revisions Nos. 778 to 780 of 1963. They were heard together and are being decided by one order as a common question of law is involved. Muzaffar Ali, Ahmad Husain and Masoom Ali lodged three reports under Section 323, I.P.C. at police station Adampur of district Varanasi. These reports were against Kabir and three others of Criminal Revision No. 778 of 1963, Nasir and two others of Criminal Revision No. 779 of 1963 and Luqman Ali and another of Criminal Revision No. 780 of 1963. The offence alleged to have been committed by the applicants was non cognisable and consequently the police moved the City Magistrate of Varanasi for permission under Section 155(2), Cr. P.C. to investigate the offence. The City Magistrate granted the permission and after investigation the police submitted charge-sheets against the applicants which we, taken cognizance of by Sri A.D. Pandey, Magistrate. In all the three cases the accused-applicants raised a preliminary objection that the permission granted by the City Magistrate was invalid on the ground that he had no territorial jurisdiction, as he was not empowered to try the cases under the Indian Penal Code. The suggestion thus made was that the City Magistrate was not one of the Magistrates who could grant the permission under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. and consequently the police could not investigate the three offences nor could it submit the charge sheets. The objection was repelled by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge of Varanasi took the same view and dismissed the three criminal revisions made by the applicants to challenge the above order of the Magistrate. The applicants there-after moved this Court to have the criminal proceedings quashed. The Magistrate observed that the permission for investigation of non cognisable offence, under Section 155(2), Cr. P. C. could be given both by the Judicial Officer and the City Magistrate as both exercised territorial jurisdiction over police station Adampur to which the present cases related. The Sessions Judge also observed that police station Adampur was in the city sub-division and as such the City Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction in respect of those cases. There is nothing on record which may show that police station Adampur or the place where the present occurrences took place did not lie within the city sub-division of Varanasi. The Sessions Judge also observed that police station Adampur was in the city sub-division and as such the City Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction in respect of those cases. There is nothing on record which may show that police station Adampur or the place where the present occurrences took place did not lie within the city sub-division of Varanasi. We can, therefore, proceed with the assumption that the City Magistrate of Varanasi exercised territorial jurisdiction and the only point for consideration is whether the City Magistrate was competent to try the non-cognisable offences under Section 323, I.P.C. 2. A scheme purporting to amount to separation of executive from judiciary is in force in the district of Varanasi also and thereunder, all the I.P.C. cases are tried by Judicial Magistrates while preventive cases under the Code of Criminal procedure by City Magistrates or Sub-Divisional Magistrates. It is by virtue of the scheme that I.P.C. cases are tried by the Judicial Magistrates of Varanasi, and not by the City Magistrate and sub-Divisional Magistrates. The scheme was not framed under any provision of the code of Criminal Procedure, nor under any other enactment, and in the eye of law shall amount to an administrative order which shall not debar a Magistrate from trying any case after taking cognizance of in accordance with the law or after the case is transferred to him for trial. Section 190(1), Cr.P.C. lays down as to who can take cognizance of an offence. The cognizance of an offence can be taken by District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate or my other Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf. The City Magistrate is for the city sub-division a sub-Divisional Magistrate and he can by virtue of this provision take cognizance of any offence pertaining to the city sub-division. The City Magistrate could thus take cognizance of the present offences under Section 323, I.P.C. and try the cases himself and in such a case he could accord permission to the police under Sec, 155(2), Cr. P. C. to investigate the non-cognisable offences under Section 323, I.P.C. 3. Section 12, Cr.P.C. empowers the State Government to define local areas within which Magistrates appointed by it may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code. P. C. to investigate the non-cognisable offences under Section 323, I.P.C. 3. Section 12, Cr.P.C. empowers the State Government to define local areas within which Magistrates appointed by it may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code. Though the State Government has the power to define local limits of the exercise of jurisdiction it cannot under this provision restrict the other powers invested on a Magistrate. I, therefore, agree with the lower courts that the City Magistrate of Varanasi was in the eye of law, Magistrate empowered to try all the criminal cases of police station Adampur and he could grant the permission for the investigation of an non-cognisable offence as contemplated by Section 155 (2), Cr.P.C. Even if it be assumed for the sake of agreement that the City Magistrate was not a Magistrate contemplated by Section 155(2), Cr, P. C. the irregularity would be curable under Section 529(b), Cr.P.C. This section clearly lays down that:- "If any Magistrate not empowered by law to do any of the following things, namely:- (b) to order, under Section 155, the police to investigate an offence; erroneously in good faith does that thing, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered." Sec. 529 covers any order passed by a Magistrate erroneously but in good faith. The city Magistrate had apparently acted in good faith and even if he acted erroneously, the order shall be protected by Section 529 and cannot be set aside simply because on correct interpretation of the law he was not so empowered. 4. In the end a reference may be made to the case of H. N. Rishbud and another v. State of Delhi, 1955 Cr. L.J. 526 on which reliance was placed by the learned Advocate for the applicants. At the bottom of para 9 of the report it was observed that where the cognizance of the case had in fact been taken and the case had proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation did not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice had be-en caused thereby. It was, however, observed in para 10; "It does not follow, however, that the invalidity of the investigation is to be completely ignored by the court during trial. It was, however, observed in para 10; "It does not follow, however, that the invalidity of the investigation is to be completely ignored by the court during trial. When the breach of such a mandatory provision is brought to the knowledge of the Court at a sufficiently early stage, the Court, while not declining cognizance, will have to take the necessary steps to get the illegality cured and the defect rectified, by ordering such reinvestigation as the circumstances of an individual case may call for." 5. The words "while not declining cognizance" make it clear that a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence even though the police had not been granted the permission to investigate the offence or the permission granted was defective and hence-illegal. However before proceeding with the trial necessary steps have to be taken to get the illegality cured and the defect rectified by ordering such reinvestigation as the circumstances of an individual case may call for. In other words, the Magistrate can proceed with the trial after the defects have been rectified. The defect with regard to the grant or non-grant of the permission under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C. can be removed by the Magistrate himself granting the necessary permission. Where investigation had been conducted properly and all the materials in favour of or against the accused had been collected by the police, ordinarily no occasion shall arise to pass an order for reinvestigation or further investigation. In the instant case nothing has been brought to my notice which may justify further investigation or reinvestigation of the offences by the police. 6. The Magistrate thus acted within the law when he ordered that the trial shall proceed in all the three cases. 7. All the three revisions have thus no force and are hereby dismissed. Stay orders are vacated.