Judgment C.P.Sinha, J. 1. The revision petition under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. is on behalf of six accused persons in the case in which the opposite party is the complainant. It is directed against the order dated 30-9-1972 passed by Mr. D. N. Singh, Munsif-Magistrate. First Class, Hajipur. Under this order, the Magistrate rejected the prayer of these petitioners for their discharge, and directed the case to be put up on the date fixed for framing charges against them. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this application are as follows. The opposite party, on 28-9-1970, filed a written complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Hajipur. making the allegations of theft and assault against these accused persons. On receipt of this complaint, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate examined the complainant on that very day. i. e.. 28-9-1970. and referred it to another Magistrate for enquiry and report. That report was received in due course in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and put UP to the Magistrate Mr. S. A. Hassan on 25-11-1970. when he perused it and recorded order. "Report received and perused. Cognizance taken under Section 379, I. P. C. Summon the accused persons. Case transferred to Sri C. S. Singh Magistrate, First Class." There is no difference between the parties that on that day. i.e., 25-11-1970. Mr. Hassan was sitting and transacting the works of sawalkhani for the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate in latters absence. 3. On receiving the records of this case, the aforesaid transferee Magistrate, Mr. C. S. Singh, registered it in his file on 25-11-1970 and ordered for issue of summons against the accused persons fixing 22-12-1970 for their appearance. Pursuant to those summonses the accused persons appeared in his Court on different dates and were allowed bail on 22-12-1970 and the Magistrate adjourned the case to 17-3-1971 for evidence before charge. On 17-3-1971. complainants two witnesses (P. Ws. 1 and 2) were examined and discharged on defence declining to cross-examine them before charge. On 17-12-1971, one more witness of the complainant, i. e., p. W. 3, was examined and cross-examined before charge. On 4-2-1972 this case, under the orders of the Sessions Judge was transferred to the file of aforesaid Munsif-Magistrate, Mr. D. N. Singh, In this Court, on 14-9-1972. one more witness was examined for the prosecution, i. e.. P. W. 4. His cross-examination was. On 4-2-1972 this case, under the orders of the Sessions Judge was transferred to the file of aforesaid Munsif-Magistrate, Mr. D. N. Singh, In this Court, on 14-9-1972. one more witness was examined for the prosecution, i. e.. P. W. 4. His cross-examination was. however, declined by the defence. After this was done, the accused persons put in a petition dated 14-9-1972 requesting the Court to discharge them on the ground stated in it. The Magistrate directed this petition to be put up on 15-9-1972 for beans heard. On 20-9-1972 the Magistrate heard both the parties on the point of discharge, as claimed by the accused persons in their petition dated 14-9-1972, and then passed the impugned order dated 30-9-1972. against which this revision is directed. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Awadh Kishore Prasad, appearing for the petitioners has urged that the order dated 25-11-1970 of Mr. Hassan taking cognizance in the case and transferring it to the aforesaid Magistrate, Mr. C. S. Singh for disposal was wholly illegal and he lacked inherent jurisdiction to do so in view of the fact that the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mr. G. S. Mazumdar had continued his jurisdiction over this subject-matter even after he had referred it to the Magistrate Mr. R. B. Pandey for enquiry and report. In that situation, according to learned Counsel, the enquiry report when received was to be out up before Mr. Mazumdar for necessary action and since Mr. Hassan could not be deemed to be his successor-in-office on that day, he had no power whatsoever to deal with the matter and its jurisdiction still continued with Mr. Mazumdar who had taken cognizance in the case and examined the complainant, and then referred the matter for enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his submission, even assuming that Mr. Hassan, on that day, i. e. 25-11-1970. was sitting in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and doing sawalkhani works, that did not make him the successor-in-office of the permanent Sub-Divisional Magistrate even for that day. Against this the contention of Mr. Mazhar Hussain. appearing for the opposite party, is that Mr. Hassan on that day was the successor-in-office of the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate and was. therefore, fully entitled to exercise this power for the latter due to his absence from the Court when this enauiry report was placed before him. Against this the contention of Mr. Mazhar Hussain. appearing for the opposite party, is that Mr. Hassan on that day was the successor-in-office of the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate and was. therefore, fully entitled to exercise this power for the latter due to his absence from the Court when this enauiry report was placed before him. Moreover, even if this was to be treated as an irregularity on his part that was curable under the provisions of Sec. 529 (f) of the Code and the latter Magistrate has rightly refused to agree to their request for discharging them on the ground that the transfer so made was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, vitiated the proceeding ab initio. In this connection, Mr. Hussain has further urged that the instant revision is hit by limitation having been filed much beyond the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of the relevant order which, in this case, should be taken to be Mr. Hassans order dated 25-11-1970. whose quashing the petitioners would seem to seek in the garb of the Magistrates order dated 30-9-1972, to escape that limitation. 5. On the facts of the case, there seems no substance in the above objection regarding this application being time-barred. In this revision, the petitioners specific prayer is to set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 30-9-1972 under which he has refused their prayer for discharge. The ground made for this discharge, was that the cognizance in the case and its transfer by the Magistrate, Mr. Hassan, were illegal and improper. This point they raised by way of support to their prayer for discharge. As it can be seen, their prayer could not be treated as confined to that order of Mr. Hassan. After hearing the parties, the Magistrate, came to the conclusion that the defect, if any, in that order of Mr. Hassan was curable under the provisions of Sec. 529 of the Code. In such a situation, this revision must be treated to be substantially directed against the Magistrates order dated 30-9-1972 and not against Mr. Hassans order dated 25-11-1970. That being the position, this application, filed on 20-12-1972. is within the prescribed period of 90 days, vide Article 131 of the Limitation Act. 1963. 6. In paragraph 7 of the revision petition it has been asserted that on the relevant date, i.e., 25-11-1970, when Mr. Hassans order dated 25-11-1970. That being the position, this application, filed on 20-12-1972. is within the prescribed period of 90 days, vide Article 131 of the Limitation Act. 1963. 6. In paragraph 7 of the revision petition it has been asserted that on the relevant date, i.e., 25-11-1970, when Mr. Hassan transferred this case to another Magistrate for disposal, he was not the successor-in-office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mr. G. S. Mazumdar. Against this the statement in the counter-affidavit filed by the opposite party (paragraph 3) is that the petitioners statement in paragraph 7 of the revisional petition that Mr. A. Hassan was not the successor-in-office of the permanent Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mr. G. S. Mazumdar is not correct and it is submitted that he (Mr. Hassan) was the Second Officer at the relevant time and. in the absence of the permanent Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he acted as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and was enjoying the powers of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and, was, therefore, his (Mr. G.S. Mazumdars) successor-in-office in the technical term at that time. There is no official paper from which it can appear that on the relevant date. i. e., 25-11-1970, Mr. Hassan had acted in that way without in any way being authorised to do so. Under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act all judicial and official acts are to be presumed as having been regularly performed unless it is shown to be otherwise. The opposite party, as stated above, in his counter-affidavit, has challenged the correctness of the averment of the petitioners in the revision petition regarding the status of Mr. Hassan as the successor-in-office of the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate Mr. G. S. Muzumdar on that day. It was open to the petitioners to request the Court to call for an official report in this regard to show that Mr. Hassan was actually without any such status so that what he had done on that day assigning that status to himself was wholly irregular and without any legal sanction. But, for reasons best known to them, they did not choose to do so. 7. This presumption seems to set support from the complete absence of any such challenge by these accused for the long period as above. The transfer order concerned by Mr. Hassan was made on 25-11-1970. Subsequent to that they appeared in Court and the case continued for several dates. 7. This presumption seems to set support from the complete absence of any such challenge by these accused for the long period as above. The transfer order concerned by Mr. Hassan was made on 25-11-1970. Subsequent to that they appeared in Court and the case continued for several dates. Four witnesses were also examined on behalf of the prosecution before charge. One of them was cross-examined by them whereas the cross-examination of the other three they declined. They did not however ever whisper on any date during this long period against such want of powers on the part of Mr. Hassan at the relevant time. It was for the first time that on 14-9-1972 they filed a petition raising this contention when the Magistrate was about to frame charges against them on the basis of the statements made by those four witnesses, whom he had examined in the Court for that purpose. 8. On a consideration of the above facts, I am inclined to think that Mr. Hassan did possess such power on 25-11-1970 when he looked into the enauiry report and after taking cognizance transferred the case to another Magistrate for disposal. On that day, he is said to have been acting in place of the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his absence. As it is pointed out with reference to the order sheet, he (Mr. Hassan) had made this order describing himself as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In these considerations, he could well be taken to have been the successor-in-office, for that temporary period, of the permanent Sub-Divisional Magistrate, i. e., Mr. G. C. Mazumdar, who, as shown above, had examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and referred the matter for magisterial enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code. 9. In this view of the matter, I am not prepared to subscribe to the stand of the petitioners that Mr. Hassan, on that day. was wholly powerless in the matter and his transferring the case to another Court was absolutely without jurisdiction and consequently conferred no jurisdiction on the transferee Magistrate to proceed with its trial on that basis. 10. Even if it be assumed for & moment, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Hassan, on that day. was wholly powerless in the matter and his transferring the case to another Court was absolutely without jurisdiction and consequently conferred no jurisdiction on the transferee Magistrate to proceed with its trial on that basis. 10. Even if it be assumed for & moment, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Hassan did not have this power and the transfer, if any, had to be done under Sec.192 of the Code by the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate who had taken cognizance in the case and examined the complainant on solemn affirmation, this was, so to say. an irregularity on Mr. Hassans part, which could be cured under Section 529 of the Code. As Clause (f) of this section lays down, if any Magistrate not empowered by law to transfer a case under Sec.192 does so erroneously in good faith, the proceeding shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his being not so empowered. This has to be treated as an irregularity on his Dart which does not vitiate the proceeding. It has been urged for the petitioners that this provision cannot come to the aid of the opposite party inasmuch as the transfer effected by Mr. Hassan could not be regarded as done so in good faith, because, in the circumstances, this action of his was obviously without exercise of due care and caution on his Part, In this connection, learned petitioners counsel has drawn my attention to the provision of Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code which provides that nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention. There is no material on the record on the basis of which it can be presumed that this act of Mr. Hassan lacked requisite care and caution. It is not disputed that on that day Mr. Hassan was doing the Sawalkhani work for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his absence. In that course, it was only natural for the office to put up the files meant to be disposed of by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before him (Mr. Hassan) as he was taking up that Court in the absence of its regular Presiding Officer, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In that circumstance, he (Mr. Hassan), when this file was put up to him. Hassan) as he was taking up that Court in the absence of its regular Presiding Officer, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. In that circumstance, he (Mr. Hassan), when this file was put up to him. looked into the enquiry report and Passed the impugned order for the transfer of the case to the file of another Magistrate after taking cognizance. It will. I think, be too much to think of lack of good faith in his doing so. He can well be thought of having taken that step exercising due care and attention as required in the circumstances. 11. On the above facts. I hold the view that even if Mr. Hassan had made this order without being empowered to do so, this has to be treated as an irregularity curable under Sec. 529 and that it cannot vitiate the proceeding and make it liable to be set aside for that reason. 12. The Bench decision of this Court in Udit Naravan Patwari V/s. Emperor (1938) 39 Cri LJ 778 : AIR 1938 Pat 369 relied upon by the petitioners to substantiate their contention that Mr. Hassan, in doing so. lacked good faith, does not, to my mind, appear helpful in the context of the instant facts. In that case, the action of the Second Enquiring Magistrate, who ignored the order under which all that he was directed to do was to make enquiry into the matter and report to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, actually held a trial inasmuch as he examined some witnesses and discharged some accused persons under Sec.253(2) of the Code and recommended to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code, was taken to be without care and caution within the meaning of Section 529 and could not, therefore, be sustained. In the present case, the matter stands on a different footing. Here, Mr. Hassans complained action is wholly dissimilar and the irregularity, if any is of much less grave nature. 13. Thus, on a careful consideration of all the above facts and circumstances. I find no sufficient reason to revise the Magistrates order in question dated 30-9-1972. The instant application to set aside this order must, therefore, fail. It is accordingly, dismissed.