JUDGMENT Shambhu Prasad. Singh, J. This application in revision has been filed against an order taking cognizance for offences under sections 426 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. It appears that originally, a petition of complaint was filed before the sarpanch of the Grampanchayat Mohiuddinpur Uprawan, Police station Biharsharif, in the district of Patna (now Nalanda) and the Sarpanch forwarded the said complaint to the Subdivisional Magistrate, Biharsharif, and thereafter, cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned. The case was also transferred to a Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, for disposal. 3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Subdivisional Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance on the basis of the report of the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat and that the Sarpanch or the Gram Cutcherry ought to have dismissed the petition of complaint if it could not try the case for there is no provision in the Bihar Gram Cutcherry Rules, 1962, for forwarding the petition of complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Reliance has been placed on rule 43 (a) which provides for disposal of complaint by the Sarpanch in such cases. In my opinion, though the Sarpanch has not followed that rule the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be held to be illegal and the order cannot be quashed. Reliance has also been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on a recent decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mishri Mandal and 23 others V. Nageshwar Singh and another1 1975 PLJR 205 but it appears that the attention of the learned Single Judge was not drawn to a Bench decision of this Court in Ram khelal1lan Choudhary and others Vs. The State2. 1970 PLJR 434 In that case, it was held that in cases where a Complaint filed before the Sarpanch of a Gram Cutcherry is placed before a Subdivisional Magistrate, he can entertain the complaint as if it had been presented to him in the first instance, Further there is a Bench decision of Kerala High Court in State of Kerala and others V. Executive officer, Nadiyiruppu Panchayat3 wherein it was held that an invalid complaint may be treated as an information and cognizance on such an invalid complaint may be taken by the Subdivisonal Magistrate under Clause (C) of section 190 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mathew. J., as he then was, was a party to this decision. Therefore, even where the complaint filed before the Gram Panchayat is sent to the Subdivisional Magistrate with a report that the case is fit to be tried by a Magistrate and treated to be an invalid complaint on that score, the Magistrate can take cognizance in an appropriate case under section 190 (1) of the Code. The decision of the learned Single Judge, in view of the Bench decision of this Court in Ram Khelawan Choudhary’8 AI 1969 Ker 111 case referred earlier, is not binding on other Judges of this Court sitting singly. 4, Procedural law is for enhancing the cause of Justice and un less it is established that strict non-observance there of has resulted in injustice and caused prejudice to the petitioners before this Court, this Court ought not to interfere with the order passed by the court below in exercise of the revisional Jurisdiction on such grounds. In the instant case, the petitioners have not been able to establish that any prejudice has been caused to them. 5. It has also been urged that tl:e order taking cognizance by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is illegal as he has not examined the complaint on solemn affirmation before issuing processes. That is an irregularity and the defect can be removed by the trying Magistrate by examining the complaint on solemn affirmation now. 6. In the result, I find no merit in the application, which is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.