Judgment 1. This application is directed against the order dated 19-5-1981 passed by Sri S. Hassan, Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in G. R. Case No, 1414 of 1980/T. R. No. 473 of 1981, by which the learned Magistrate has ordered to send the case to the file of a Magistrate of first class for commitment. 2. It appears that the cognizance had been taken for offences under Ss. 448, 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code on 2-2-1981 and the case was transferred to the court of the Judicial Magistrate for trial and disposal. 3. When the learned transferee Magistrate perused the record and the first information report as also the case diary, it appeared to him that, as a matter of fact, a clear case for the offence under Sec. 436 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out and the offence under Sec. 436 of the Indian Penal Code being exclusively triable by the court of Session, the impugned order has been passed, as stated above. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law because such order could only be passed, if there be some evidence taken in the case. 5. I do not find any substance in this contention at all. The three decisions cited by the learned counsel are Satyanarayan Yadav V/s. State of Bihar (1977 BBCJ (HC) 422); Syed Jamaluddin V/s. The State of Bihar (1978 BBCJ (SOC) N 3) and Ram Lagan Singh V/s. State of Bihar. 1979 BB CJ (HC) 580 : (1980 Cri LJ NOC 62). The facts involved in all the three cases are quite different and the decisions are not applicable at all. As a matter of fact, in the decisions, the provisions of Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) are involved. The fact of the case in hand is entirely a different one. 6. If the Magistrate, who has passed the impugned order, would have been a Magistrate of the first class, meaning thereby that if he would have been competent to commit the accused persons, he himself would have one the same as provided under S. 323 of the Code. 7. 6. If the Magistrate, who has passed the impugned order, would have been a Magistrate of the first class, meaning thereby that if he would have been competent to commit the accused persons, he himself would have one the same as provided under S. 323 of the Code. 7. Therefore, he being a Magistrate of the 2nd class, has rightly passed the impugned order for transferring the case to some other Magistrate of competent jurisdiction so that the committal proceeding may be adopted. 8. In the result, I do not find any merit in this application, which fails and is dismissed.