JUDGMENT G. Kumar, J. - This revision involves a question of jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge as to whether he can transfer a proceeding under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. from the court of one Magistrate to that of another. 2. The facts of the case are very simple. Opposite party No. 2 Smt. Ram Dei filed an application against the present applicant Sher Singh under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. in the court of the S.D. M., Thakurdwara as also against opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4. The present applicant Sher Singh (who was one of the opposite parties before the Magistrate) as well as the other two opposite parties Gokaran Singh and Ram Pal Singh moved an application in the court of the Sessions Judge, Moradabad for transfer of the 145, Cr. P. C. enquiry from the court of the S.D. M. Thakurdwara to the court of some other Magistrate competent to enquire into the matter. The main objection raised on behalf of Smt. Ram Dei was that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer the said proceedings either under Sec. 526 or 528, Cr. P C. The learned Sessions Judge accepted this contention hence this revision by Sher Singh who was one of the opposite parties before the enquiring Magistrate. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for Smt. Ram Dei (opposite party No. 2) is that a proceeding under section 145, Cr. P. C. is not a case within the meaning of Sec 526 or 528, Cr. P. C. In support of this contention her learned counsel has relied upon two cases, viz. Satish Chandra Pandaya v. Rajendra Narain Bagchi, ILR. R. XXII Cal. 898 and Fernadez v. Wray, ILR. R. XXII Bom. 176. Both these decisions were considered in the case of Jaggu Ahir v. Murli Shukul, (1912) X ALJ. R. 27 where a Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the expression `criminal case' in Sec. 526, Cr. P. C. includes a proceeding initiated under Sec. 145 of the Code and that the High Court under Sec. 526, Cr. P. C. had ample power to transfer it from one court to another court. This view was later on followed in Muhammad Nasi Khan v. Rani Rahmat-Unnisa, A.I.R. 1923 Oudh 161 and Bansi v. Lakshmi Das, A.I.R. 1924 Alld. 76. P. C. had ample power to transfer it from one court to another court. This view was later on followed in Muhammad Nasi Khan v. Rani Rahmat-Unnisa, A.I.R. 1923 Oudh 161 and Bansi v. Lakshmi Das, A.I.R. 1924 Alld. 76. I am naturally bound by the Allahabad High Court's view in preference to the view taken by the Calcutta and Bombay High Court. 4. From the analysis of Secs. 526 and 528, Cr. P. C. as amended, it is also clear that the High Court as well as the Sessions Judge have ample jurisdiction to transfer proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. from the court of one Magistrate to the other, who is otherwise competent to enquire into the matter. The relevant provisions of Sec. 526, Cr. P. C. are as under: - "526. High Court may transfer case or itself try it. (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court: (a) that a fair and impartial enquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or (b).................. (c).................. (d) ................. (e) that such an order is expedient for the ends of justice, or is required by any provision of this Code it may order - (i) ................. (ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court Subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;" 5. By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act XXVI of 1955, inter alia the following sub-section was added: "(1 -A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Sec. (1), no application shall lie to the High Court for the exercise of its powers under the said sub-Section for transferring any case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him." 6. Sub-Sec. (1-C) of Sec. 528 reads: "Any Sessions Judge, on an application made to him in this behalf, may, if he is of opinion that it is expedient for the ends of justice, order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division." 7. An enquiry under Sec. 145, Cr. Sub-Sec. (1-C) of Sec. 528 reads: "Any Sessions Judge, on an application made to him in this behalf, may, if he is of opinion that it is expedient for the ends of justice, order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division." 7. An enquiry under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. being a case as interpreted by this Court, the Sessions Judge has full jurisdiction and authority to entertain an application for its transfer from one Magistrate to another. 8. Apart from the view taken by this Court in the cases referred to above that the word `case' embraces an enquiry under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C., it is significant to note that sub-Sec. (1) (a) of Sec. 526 clearly envisages a trial as well as an enquiry. There can be no manner of doubt that proceedings under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. are certainly enquiry. Thus, it cannot be questioned that at least the High Court has jurisdiction to transfer a pending enquiry under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. from one Magistrate to another. However, the newly added sub-Sec. (1 -A) to Sec. 526, Cr. P. C. enjoins that the High Court cannot be approached in the matter unless and until an application for its transfer has first been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him. This clearly shows that the Sessions Judge is also vested with a jurisdiction to entertain an application for transfer of a trial as well as an enquiry from one criminal court to another. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is patently erroneous. 9. Accordingly, I allow this revision, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 23rd of October, 1965, and direct that he shall entertain the transfer application and decide it on merits with all expedition. The office shall communicate this order to the Sessions Judge within six weeks. Revision allowed.