JUDGMENT 1. - This petition u/s 401 and 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against, the order of the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh (Alwar, dated 19-10-81, whereby he has taken cognizance of a case u/s 302 IPC against the petitioner and has issued a warrant of arrest for summoning the accused petitioner. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the police in this case after investigation, had given a final report that no case was made out against the petitioner. Thereafter a complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and in these circumstances, the Chief Judicial Magistrate alone was entitled to that cognizance and the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (Alwar) was not authorised to take cognizance in the case. Attention of the court in this regard is drawn to chapter IV of the Cr. PC, which lays down for conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. It is contended that u/s 192(1) Cr. PC the Chief Judicial Magistrate alone was competent to take cognizance and thereafter he could have made over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent magistrate subordinate to him. 3. I see no force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The complaint was initially submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, but it is apparent from the record of the file that on 15th July, 1980 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had transferred the complaint for necessary action to the Munsiff Magistrate, Rajgarh, it cannot be disputed that the Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case filed on a complaint u/s 302 IPC on a transfer made to him by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Section 192 Cr. PC is only an enabling section and in Subsection (1) of Section 192 Cr. PC, any Chief Judicial Magistrate may, after taking cognizance of an offence, make over the case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him. Then this means that the Chief Judicial Magistrate may also after taking cognizance of an offence can transfer such case for inquiry or trial to any competent Magistrate subordinate to him. There is no bar that the Chief Judicial Magistrate without taking cognizance cannot transfer such case to Magistrate subordinate to him for necessary action where a complaint is filed before him. There is no bar that the Chief Judicial Magistrate without taking cognizance cannot transfer such case to Magistrate subordinate to him for necessary action where a complaint is filed before him. Thus I find no substance in the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It was next contended that proviso to sub-section (2) of section 202 Cr. PC , it has been laid down that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the court of session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. It is argued that the complainant had filed a list of 13 witnesses but the learned Magistrate examined only 7 witnesses and thus it is a violation of the above proviso of sub-section 2 of Section 202 Cr. PC. 5. I see no force in the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. U/s 204 sub-section (1) it has been laid down that if in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding and the case appears to be a warrant case, he may issue a warrant or if he thinks fit, a summons for calling the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. Thus it is the satisfaction of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence that there was sufficient ground for proceeding. In case the Magistrate was satisfied with the evidence of seven witnesses that there was sufficient ground for proceeding then he was entitled under sub-section (1) of Section 204 to issue process. It may be true that in case he was not satisfied to lake cognizance and issue process on the basis of only seven witnesses, in that case, the complainant could have insisted that all his 13 witnesses should be examined and thereafter the Magistrate could have passed an order. However, in a case where in the opinion of such Magistrate if he was satisfied that sufficient ground existed for issuing a process on the basis of 7 witnesses only, in that case it cannot be said that he had no jurisdiction to do so or it was the non-compliance of proviso to sub-section (2) of section 202 Cr. PC. 6. PC. 6. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the statement of the seven witnesses so far recorded, no case for taking cognizance of issue process was at all made out. It was also contended that though in the complaint, six accused persons, were named but there was no reason to single out the case of the petitioner alone and to have issued a process against him alone. This court, at this stage, hardly can go into the sufficiency of the evidence. The Magistrate has only taken cognizance of the case and has issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner for appearance in the court. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has mentioned that from the statement of the 7 witnesses so far recorded and certain letters written by the petitioner, a prima-facie case for taking cognizance was made out. It cannot be said that the case is based on no evidence or the learned Magistrate committed any error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. 7. In the result, I find no substance in this petition and it is hereby dismissed. The record of the trial court may be sent back.Revision Dismissed. *******