Judgment B.P.Sinha, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 8-4-1967 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Giridih, in a case instituted under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 17-11-1966, Bishwa Nath Pra-sad, Petitioner, filed a complaint before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih, against Shri Yashoda Nandan Sinha, Subhash Chandra Sarkar, Editor, Searchlight and Awadhesh Kumar Tiwary, publisher and printer, Searchlight. The learned Subdivisional Magistrate examined the complainant on S. A. and summoned the Editor and publisher of Searchlight. As against Opposite Party Yashoda Nandan Sinha, he referred the matter for an enquiry by Shri J. Das, Magistrate, 1st Class. The Enquiring Magistrate submitted his report on 5-12-66 to the effect that a prima facie case was made out against Yashoda Nandan Sinha as well. On 6-12-1966, Yashoda Nandan Sinha moved the Sessions Judge against the enquiry report and the learned Sessions Judge stayed further proceedings in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Consequently, no order could be passed on receipt of the report of the Enquiring Magistrate. Ultimately, the learned Sessions Judge disposed of the matter rejecting the petition of Yashoda Nandan Sinha on 21-3-67 with the following observations:- - "All that I want to point out at this stage is that the Acting Sub-divisional Magistrate, after taking cognizance should at once transfer a case to a mun-sif-Magistrate. The detention of the file is against the separation scheme. At this stage the applicant who has been named as a third accused in the complaint petition has no locus standi and this application is not maintainable. I, however, make it clear that the Sub-divisional Magistrate must at once transfer the records of the case of which he has taken cognizance to a Munsif Magistrate." On receipt of this order, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate passed the impugned order on 8-4-67 to the following effect :- - "perused the order of the learned Sessions Court. Cognizance has already been taken under Sec. 500 I. P. C. The case is transferred to the file of Sri G. N. Chandra, Munsif Magistrate, 1st Class, for disposal." It is against this order that this revision application has been directed, as mentioned above. 3 The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate failed to exercise his jurisdiction in not passing any order on the report of the Enquiring Magistrate. 3 The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate failed to exercise his jurisdiction in not passing any order on the report of the Enquiring Magistrate. According to the separation scheme, after taking cognizance, the Sub-divisional Magistrate is to transfer a criminal case to the file of a Munsif Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate. It is well settled that cognizance is taken of an offence and not of an accused, that is to say when cognizance of the offence was taken in this case, though the order for issue of summons was against some of the accused only, the learned Magistrate should have transferred the case to the file of another Magistrate, Judicial or Munsif, for trial. This irregularity in the procedure was noticed by the learned Sessions Judge and he rightly directed the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate to transfer the case immediately to a Munsif Magistrate for trial. Because by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, further proceedings in the matter were stayed, the learned Sub-divisional officer could not have passed any order earlier regarding the report of the Enquiry Officer either accepting or rejecting it. In the order of the learned Sessions Judge, there was a clear direction to transfer the case immediately to a Munsif Magistrate and, in obedience to that order, the learned Sub-divisional Officer passed the impugned order. Therefore, no irregularity has been committed therein. He did not either accept the report or reject it and the whole case was transferred to the Munsif Magistrate. It was that Magistrate who could consider the report of the Enquiry Officer and pass necessary order. It was not obligatory for the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate to pass order before transferring the case. There is no provision in law compelling a Magistrate to pass such order before transferring a case to the Magistrate. 4. On perusal of the record, it ap-pears that as a matter of fact before the Sessions Court it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner himself that in view of the separation scheme immediately after the cognizance the Sub-divisional Magistrate should have transferred the case to the file of a Munsif-Magistrate who was the proper person to find out as to who else can be summoned in the case as additional accused. The learned lawyer for the petitioner had conceded that the matter had to be seen by the trial court and not by the Acting Sub-divisional Magistrate. Now, however, the petitioner has taken a different stand which has got no footing. The impugned order is a simple order of transfer of the case to another Magistrate for disposal. Under Sec.192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure such transfer order can be passed at any stage of the case before it reaches the stage of inquiry or trial. The only precondition is that the Sub-divisional Magistrate should have taken cognizance of the case. Here the cognizance of the case was already taken and, therefore, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate was within his jurisdiction to transfer the case to another Magistrate for disposal even without passing any order on receipt of the inquiry report in respect of Shri Yashoda Nandan Sinha, I do not find any illegality in the order. 5. The order-sheet of the trial Court indicates that, as a matter of fact, before the learned Munsif-Magistrate, the complainant raised this matter and prayed for issue of processes against Yashoda Nandan Sinha on basis of the report of Mr. J. Das, Magistrate, 1st Class. It appears that the learned Magistrate on a due consideration of the matter has passed an order that this question would be considered only after some witnesses are examined when he would be able to know whether a prima facie case was made out against Yashoda Nandan Sinha. He has left the matter open. I think, this was quite appropriate order. 6. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire circumstances, I find that there is no reason to set aside the order of the learned Sub-divisional Officer dated 8-4-67. The petition is, therefore, rejected.