JUDGMENT 1. 1. The question involved in the present case is as to whether after withdrawal of the case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Sub-section (1) of Section 410, Cr.PC (1973) (for short, the Code) from the Court of Judicial Magistrate he had still the jurisdiction to decide the case? 2. Now the facts: The petitioner had filed a report in P.S. Kotwali, Dholpur, then in District Bharatpur, on 16-8-1976 against the non-petitioners (2 to 5). The SHO of the police station registered a case under Sections 452, 327 and 323, Indian Penal Code against the above numbered accused-non-petitioners. After investigation the SHO filed a charge sheet No 102 in the year 1976 in the court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur on 15-9-1976. That court tried the accused-non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 for offences under sections 147, 452, 323 or 323/149 IPC. The learned AMJM (2), Dholpur in whose court the case was received by transfer on 23-8-1980 under his judgment dated 9th August, 1982 convicted the accused non-petitioners (2-5) under Sections 147, 452, 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them for the said offences. An appeal was filed by the accused-non-petitioners (2-5) against the said judgment, and the only ground urged in support of the appeal was that the Chief Judicial Magistrate under order dated 3-5-1942 had recalled the case to his court from the court of AMJM (2), Dholpur. Thus, from 3-5-1982 the learned AMJM (2), had ceased to have jurisdiction to the case and the judgment delivered by him on 9-8-1982 was without jurisdiction. The ground urged before the learned Appellate court succeeded and it allowed the appeal under his judgment dated 5-4-1984, and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the accused-non-petitioners (2-5). The learned appellate court sent back the case to the CJM Dholpur with a direction to hear arguments and decide the case afresh It is not the State which has come to this court in revision, but it is Vasudeo complainant who has chosen to come to this court in revision. 3. I will now refer to the point framed in the beginning of this order. 3. I will now refer to the point framed in the beginning of this order. From the narration of facts there can be no dispute that the learned CJM in exercise of powers conferred under Section 410 of the Code had recalled the case from the court of AMJM (2), Dholpur to his own court, but still on 9-8-1982 the learned AMJM (2), decided the case. It appears that along with the present Criminal Case No 76/84 a few other cases were recalled by by the CJM from the court of AMJM(2) to his own court. An order was issued under Section 410(1) of the new Code recalling the present case and other cases of which list was enclosed. It appears that while the list of the cases which were recalled from the court of AMJM (2) was received, no effort was made by the office to take out the files as per the list and to place them before the Presiding Officer to show that the cases were transferred from that court to the court of CIM. Thus, it appears that the learned AMIVI (2) heard arguments and gave judgment in the case. But, this inadvertence of the court will not confer any jurisdiction on the Court, if the court has note. 4. A look at Sub-section (I) of Section 410 of the new Code which corresponds to Section 350 of the Old Code (1908) shows that the said Sub-section confers a power on the succeeding Magistrate to act on the evidence recorded by his predecessor, but after having heard and recorded fully or any part of the evidence in the enquiry or trial it ceases to exercise jurisdiction on succeeding by another Magistrate. A reading of Sub-section (2) of Section F will show that when a case is transferred under the provisions of the new Code from on Magistrate to another Magistrate, the former will be deemed to cease to exercise jurisdiction in the case and will be succeeded by his successor Magistrate within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 326 of the Code. Thus, there can be no dispute that when a case is transferred under the provisions of the new Code, then the court from which the case is transferred will cease to have the jurisdiction and the transferee court will have the jurisdiction in the case. Thus, there can be no dispute that when a case is transferred under the provisions of the new Code, then the court from which the case is transferred will cease to have the jurisdiction and the transferee court will have the jurisdiction in the case. Chapter XXXI of the new Code deals with transfer of criminal cases. While dealing with Sub-section (2) of Section 326 of the new Code, it has been seen that the Sub-section will have the effect when a case is transferred under the provisions of the new Code, i.e., Chapter XXXI. Sub-Section (1) of section 410 of the new Code confers powers on the Chief Judicial Magistrate to withdraw any case from, or recall any case which he has made over to any Magistrate subordinate to him, and may inquire into or try such case himself, or refer it for inquiry or trial to any other such Magistrate competent to inquire into or try the same. There can be no dispute that the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate is a superior court to the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Under Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the new Code every Judicial Magistrate, subject to the general control of the Sessions Judge, is subordinate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, once a superior court in this case the Chief Judicial Magistrate, transfers or recalls a case from the court of Judicial Magistrate to his court, or after recalling transfers it to any other Judicial Magistrate competent to try the case, the court of Judicial Magistrate from whose court the case is recalled or transferred will cease to have jurisdiction in the case. In the instant case, even the AMJM (2), Dholpur received the case by transfer from another Judicial Magistrate under the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thus, when the learned CJM had recalled the case under order dated 3-5-1982 from the court of AMJM (2) to his own court, from that day onwards the learned AMJM (2) had ceased to have jurisdiction in the case. This will be the legal position not with standing the fact that by inadvertence the learned AMJM (2) from whose court the case was called or transferred was not knowing the fact of transfer of the case from his court, as aforesaid. This will be the legal position not with standing the fact that by inadvertence the learned AMJM (2) from whose court the case was called or transferred was not knowing the fact of transfer of the case from his court, as aforesaid. The learned Sessions Judge Dholpur in holding that the judgment was without jurisdiction has referred to the case of Mardan and Ors. v. Rex., AIR 1950 All. 478 . That court took the aforesaid view which has been taken by me in the earlier part of this order. 5. Therefore, it can be said that once the case has been transferred or recalled by a superior court from the inferior criminal court under Chapter XXXI of the new Code, the court from which the case has been transferred or recalled will cease to have jurisdiction and the judgment pronounced by that court will be without jurisdiction. 6. Consequently, there is no force in this revision and it is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******