JUDGMENT : On the complaint made by one Manik Chand Sao, the Sub divisional Magistrate, Patna Sadar, examined the complainant on solemn affirmation on the 29th of September, 1970 and sent the matter to Shri S.N. Sahay for enquiry and report. Shri S.N. Sahay was transferred and as such the case was recalled to the general file and on the 10th of December, 1970, it was sent to the file of the Magistrate Shri K.I. Singh. On the 12th May, 1971 the enquiry report disclosing a prima facie case under Sections 452, 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code was received from Shri K.I. Singh and was placed before Shri P.D. Prasad, who was acting as the Sub-divisional Magistrate on that date. He took cognizance and transferred the case to the file of Shri I.D. Ram, Judicial Magistrate. On the 24th May, 1971 Shri I.D. Ram ORDER :ed issue of summons. This revision application has been filed to quash the cognizance taken and the proceeding pending before Shri I.D. Ram. 2. It was argued for the petitioners that it is a case of taking doable cognizance and therefore the proceeding is vitiated. It would appear that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had examined the complaint on solemn affirmation on the 29th September, 1970 and had sent the matter for enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Magistrate Shri S.N. Sahay. Since at this stage the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate applied his mind for proceeding under Section 202 of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, as observed in (1) Jamuna Singh Vs. Bhadai Singh (A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 1541) he would be held to have taken cognizance of the offence on that date. No doubt, the Magistrate Shri P.D. Prasad on the 12th May, 1971 recorded an ORDER :of taking cognizance and transferring the case to the court of Shri I.D. Ram Judicial Magistrate bat cognizance having already been taken by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, there was no scope of cognizance being taken afresh of the same offence by Shri P.D. Prasad. Even if Shri P.D. Prasad recorded an ORDER :that he took cognizance of the offence it will not, in any manner import illegality in the cognizance already taken. 3. Even if Shri P.D. Prasad recorded an ORDER :that he took cognizance of the offence it will not, in any manner import illegality in the cognizance already taken. 3. A comment was made that without any ORDER :Shri K.I. Singh held an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code and submitted his report upon which cognizance was taken by Shri P.D. Prasad. This comment, however is based on ignorance of facts since the ORDER :-sheet clearly show that after transfer of Shri S.N. Sahay, the case was taken back to the general file and then sent to the Magistrate Shri K.I. Singh. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention. 4. It was argued that after taking cognizance Shri P.D. Prasad transferred the case to Shri I.D. Ram and this he was not empowered to do. Here again the argument hi based on ignorance of full facts. Learned counsel for the opposite party produced in court an ORDER :dated the 11th June, 1970 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, empowering Shri P.D. Prasad under Subsection (2) of Section 192 of the C0de to transfer the case of which he has taken cognizance to any other Magistrate junior to him for Enquiry or trial. Besides this power which was vested in Shri P.D. Prasad, transferred of a case under Section 192 of the Code erroneously in good faith is utmost under Section 529 of the Code an irregularity and an irregularity which does not vitiate the proceeding. Therefore, argument advanced on the point has no substance. 5. Lastly, it was contended that the transferee Magistrate Shri I.D. Ram could not issue processes. There is no substance in this connection either in view of a Bench decision of this court in (2) Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2095 of 1970 delivered on the 2nd August, 1972. 6. No substance having been found in any of the contentions raised, the result is that the application is dismissed. Application dismissed