( 1 ) THESE 11 revision petitions have been filed by the State challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharwar, in Cr. R. P. Nos. 21 to 31 of 1970. ( 2 ) ON a complaint given by one Channabasappa Mudukappa Kakola against the 11 respondents before this Court, the Ranebennur Police instituted proceedings under S. 110 Cr. P. C. in the Court of the Sub-Divisonal magistrate, Haveri. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haveri passed orders dated 30-4-1970 holding that the incidents mentioned in the complaint were not sufficient to proceed against the 11 respondents under S. 110 Cr. P. C. and declined to make a preliminary order under s. 112 Cr. P. C. Against these orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional magistrate, the State preferred revision petitions before the learned Sessions Judge, dharwar, challenging the correctness and legality of the said orders. The learned Sessions Judge relying on a decision of this Court, syed Ismail Qadri v. Syed Abdul Nabi, (1969) 1 Mys. L. J. 1 held that he was not competent to revise the impugned orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional magistrate, under S. 435 Cr. P. C. and declined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in the revison petitions filed by the State. The State, in these 11 revision petitions has challenged the correctness and legality of the said orders passed by the learned sessions Judge. ( 3 ) THE learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, has contended that in the decision in Syed Ismail Qadri v. Syed Abdul Nabi, this Court was considerng the powers of the Sessions Judge to transfer a case pending before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In the said decision, this court held that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not subordinate to the Sessions Judge but it is only the District magistrate who could order the transfer of a case from the file of the Subdivisional Magistrate. The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that S. 17b Cr. P. C. specifically states that all Courts of Magistrates shall be Criminal Courts inferior to the Court of Session. S. 435 Cr. P. C. states that the High Court or the Sessions Judge may call for and examine the records of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its local limits or his jurisdiction. S. 17b Cr. P. C. specifically states that all Courts of Magistrates shall be Criminal Courts inferior to the Court of Session. S. 435 Cr. P. C. states that the High Court or the Sessions Judge may call for and examine the records of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its local limits or his jurisdiction. S. 17b Cr. P. C. clearly states that courts of Magistrates are Criminal Courts inferior to the Court of Session. It is argued that the Sessions Judge had power under S. 435 Cr. P. C. to call for and examine the records of the proceedings for the purpose of satisfying himself about the correctness, legality or propriety of the finding, sentence or order passed, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ( 4 ) SRI Havanur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 12 respondents in those revision petitions, has not disputed that the Court of the sub-Divisional Magistrate is a. Criminal Court inferior to that of the court of Session and that the learned Sessions Judge could, under S. 435, cr. P. C. examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ( 5 ) SECTION 17b Cr. P. C. reads as follows: " Courts of Session and Courts of Magistrates shall be Criminal courts inferior to the High Court and Courts of Magistrates shall be criminal Courts inferior to the Court of Session. " it is clear from the above section that the Court of the Sub-Divisional magistrate is a Criminal Court inferior to the Court of Session. S. 435 states that the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine any records of the proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its local limits or his jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the inferior Criminal Court. I am therefore clearly of opinion that in the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge, acting under S. 435, cr. P. C. could call for and examine the records of the Sub-Divisional magistrate who was an inferior Criminal Court situate within his jurisdiction to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. P. C. could call for and examine the records of the Sub-Divisional magistrate who was an inferior Criminal Court situate within his jurisdiction to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ( 6 ) IN Syed Ismail Qadri v. Syed Abdul Nabi, this Court was considering the question whether the Sessions Judge was entitled to transfer a case pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. This Court held that the Sub Divisional Magistrate is not subordinate to the Sessions judge and hence the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for transfer of the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional magistrate. It may be pointed out that under S. 526 Cr. P. C. the Court has got power to transfer cases pending in a Court subordinate thereto. Even as per sub-clause (2) of S. 528 Cr. P. C. the Sessions Judge has power to withdraw or recall any case pending before a subordinate Magistrate. Further sub-clause (3) of S. 528 Cr. P. C. states that the District Magistrate has got power to withdraw cases pending on the file of a Magistrate subordinate to him. It is because of these provisions in the Code of Cri. Procedure, this Court in Syed Ismail Qadri v. Syed Abdul Nabi, held that the Sessions Judge had no power to transfer a case pending on the file of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It is no doubt true that in the course of the order this Court has stated that the Sessions Judge is not entitled to set aside or revise the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. This observation made by this Court was in the context of the said case where the Court was considering only the power of ordering transfer of a case pending on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The word 'revise' used in the judgment was in the context of setting aside the order. This Court in the said case did not go into the question of the power which could be exercised by the learned Sessions Judge of calling for and examining the records of inferior Criminal Courts under S. 435 Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) I am therefore clearly of opinion that in the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge could act under S. 435 Cr. P. C. with regard to the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. P. C. ( 7 ) I am therefore clearly of opinion that in the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge could act under S. 435 Cr. P. C. with regard to the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ( 8 ) SRI Havanur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, has contended that on merits there is no case at all made out against the 11 respondents for taking proceedings under S. 110 Cr. P. C. He argues that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate after going through the materials, had come to the conclusion that it was not a fit case to initiate proceedings against the respondents under S. 110 Cr. P. C. There are only four incidents referred to in the complaint and the 11 respondents are concerned individually with only one incident. In circumstances like that, it could not be said that the respondents are habitual offenders to justify proceedings being taken against them under S. 110 Cr. P. C. It is also stressed by Sri Havanur that no useful purpose will be served by this court remanding the case to the learned Sessions Judge for disposal on merits, as the learned Sessions Judge has no power under S. 435 Cr. P. C. to set 'aside the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and he will have to refer the matter again to this Court under S. 438, cr. P. C. to pass necessary orders. It is therefore urged by Sri Havanur that this Court should. go into the merits and decide whether there is any need for this Court to interfere in revision with the orders passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate. ( 9 ) THERE is considerable force in the contention of Sri Havanur. All the incidents referred to in the complaint are old incidents which have happened years ago, and admittedly as the complaint itself shows, no action was taken, as all of them were compromised. Apart from that, as pointed out by Sri Havanur, each of the respondents is concerned with only one incident. In view of this, it cannot be contended that the respondents were habitually committing offences. Therefore, the learned magistrate was justified in coming to the conclusion that the incidents mentioned in the complaint and the police report were not sufficient to proceed against the 11 respondents under S. 110 Cr. In view of this, it cannot be contended that the respondents were habitually committing offences. Therefore, the learned magistrate was justified in coming to the conclusion that the incidents mentioned in the complaint and the police report were not sufficient to proceed against the 11 respondents under S. 110 Cr. P. C. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and I am of opinion that this is not a fit case where proceedings should be taken under S. 110 Cr. P. C. against the respondents. ( 10 ) WITH the observations mentioned above the learned Sessions Judge has power under S. 435 Cr. P. C. to call for the records of any proceedings before the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, these revision petitions stand dismissed. --- *** --- .