JUDGMENT : 1. This application in revision is directed against the ORDER :dated the 14th of June, 1971 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate cancelling the jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry. 2 A first information report was lodged against the petitioners for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Value of 5 to 6 bundles of wheat said to have been taken away was stated to be Rs. 80/-. On submission of charge sheet the learned Subdivisional Magistrate, Hajipur took cognizance of the case and transferred it to the court of Shri C. Singh, Munsif-Magistrate, Second Class for trial. Some witnesses were examined by the trying Magistrate and thereafter on the 28th of April, 1971 a petition was filed by the petitioners to the effect that as the case was triable by a Bench of the Gram Cutcherry it should be sent there. Accordingly the trying Magistrate sent the case back to the Sub-divisional Magistrate for passing ORDER :s under Section 69 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. On the 14th of June, 1971 although the lawyer of the petitioners was not present and a petition for time had been filed on their behalf, the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate heard the lawyer of the first informant and cancelled the jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry and re-transferred the case to the file of the same trying Magistrate for disposal. It is against the above ORDER :that the present revision application is directed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Section 68 of the Act and on its basis has argued that no doubt the Subdivisional Magistrate is authorised to cancel the jurisdiction of the Gram Cutcherry but he must assign reason for the same. Section 68 of the Act of course does not say in terms that reason for cancelling the jurisdiction has to be assigned. In Section 70 of the Act, however, which deals with withdrawal of cases from the Bench of the Gram Cutcherry, the legislature has laid down that the Sub divisional Magistrate or the Munsif has to record reasons. As such it is for consideration whether in absence of these words in Section 68, the ORDER :impugned against can be sustained or not. No direct authority one way or the other has been brought to my notice but assistance can be had from decisions on Section 528 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such it is for consideration whether in absence of these words in Section 68, the ORDER :impugned against can be sustained or not. No direct authority one way or the other has been brought to my notice but assistance can be had from decisions on Section 528 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Section 528(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to record reasons before withdrawing the case from the file of a Subordinate Magistrate Even then the Calcutta High Court in (1) Muhammad Sharif V. Hari Prasad Lal (27 Cr.L.J. 1214) held that failure on the part of the Magistrate to record reasons was not fatal to his ORDER :of transfer. In (2) Jokhiram Mahesika V. Bhagalpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. (A.I.R. 1947 Patna 339) a Division Bench of this Court held that such a failure was a mere irregularity curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A similar view was taken in (3) Ramakant Bajpai V. Banbari Sahu and Gujrin Sahu (1957 B.L.J.R. 41). So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the learned Subdivisional Magistrate has cancelled the jurisdiction but has not assigned reasons for doing so. No doubt the section does not say that he must record his reasons but it is elementary that judicial ORDER :s should be supported by reasons. That enables a superior court to judge the legality or otherwise of an ORDER :. This is also calculated to create confidence in the mind of the litigant public. The learned Subdivisional Magistrate, in the instant case, was quite competent to cancel the jurisdiction but the error that he has committed is that he has not assigned any reason for doing so. This, in my opinion, amounts to a mere irregularity and not to an illegality. Now that the matter has come to this court at the earliest stage it would be proper to set it aside and send the case back to Subdivisional Magistrate to pass a suitable ORDER :after recording his reasons. 5. With this observation the application is allowed. Application allowed