JUDGMENT S B. Sinha, J.-This application by an order dated 17-11-1988 was directed to be heard by a Division Bench, at the time of admission itself. In this application, the question of law relating to interpretation of Section 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is involved. 2. In view of the issue involved in this application it is not necessary to state the facts in details. 3. Suffice, it to say that the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint petition on 25-10-1986 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. Upon receipt of the aforementioned complaint petition and upon perusal thereof, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in purported exercise of his power conferred upon him under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entrusted the enquiry thereof to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh. It may be mentioned that before referring the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hazaribagh, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not examine the complainant on solemn affirmation. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh purported to have submitted a report on 26-5-1987. 4. By the impugned order dated 29-8-1987, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, purporting to rely upon the said report, took cognizance of offence as against the petitioner under sections 427 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Mr. T. R. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has raised the following contentions :- The learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh did not examine the complainant on solemn affirmation either at the time of referring the matter to Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh for enquiry or before taking cognizance of the offence. The learned counsel in this connection has strongly relied. upon a decision reported in 1984 P.L.J.R., Page-202 (Ram Ekabal Pandey vs. Kapil Deo Rai and ors.) and AIR 1977 Supreme Court, Page-2401 (Tula Ram and ors. vs. Kishore Singh). 6. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant-Opposite Pary No. 2 and Mrs. Jaya Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 (Chairman, Hazaribagh Municipality) did not controvert the factual position that the complainant opposite party, was not examined on solemn affirmation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh either at the time of referring the case to Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh for enquiry or before taking cognizance. Jaya Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 (Chairman, Hazaribagh Municipality) did not controvert the factual position that the complainant opposite party, was not examined on solemn affirmation by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh either at the time of referring the case to Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh for enquiry or before taking cognizance. However, the learned counsel submitted that non-examination of complainant opposite party on solemn affirmation is merely an irregularity, and, as such thereby, the impugned order of taking cognizance is not vitiated. The learned counsel in this connection has placed reliance in Hulas Mahton and Ors. vs. Mathura Prasad (1976 PLJR page 128). In Hulas Mahton case a learned single Judge of this Court held as follows :"- Therefore, even where the complaint filed before the Gram Panchayat is sent to the Sub-divisional 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) (c) of the Code. The decision of the learned Single Judge, in view of the Bench decision of the Court in Ram Khelawan Choudharys' case referred earlier, is not binding on other judges of this Court sitting singly. Procedural law is for enhancing the cause of justice and unless it is established that strict non-observance thereof 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 ground in the instant case the petitioners have not been able to establish that any prejudice has been caused to them." 7. From a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it will be evident that the court transferring a case for an enquiry need not examine the complainant on solemn affirmation. However, there cannot be any doubt that he is required to do so before he takes cognizance of the offence. 8. From a perusal of the provisions contained in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it will be evident that the court transferring a case for an enquiry need not examine the complainant on solemn affirmation. However, there cannot be any doubt that he is required to do so before he takes cognizance of the offence. 8. Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:- "A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate." From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is absolutely clear that the same is ex-facie mandatory in character. Thus, the Magistrate before taking cognizance is required to examine the complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses present, if any. In Tula Ram's case (supra), Supreme Court held as follows :- "Where a Magistrate ch00ses to take cognizance he can adopt any of the following alternatives: (a) He can peruse the complaint and if satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding he can straightway issue process to the accused but before he does so he must comply with the requirements of Section 201 and record the evidence of the complainant or his witnesses. (b) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by himself. (c) The Magistrate can postpone the issue of process and direct an enquiry by any other person or an investigation by the police." 9. The aforementioned decision is thus an authority for the proposition that before taking cognizance of an offence as against the accused person, the Magistrate concerned should examine the complainant and witnesses present, if any, on solemn affirmation. 10. There can not, however, be any doubt whatsoever that non-examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation is merely an irregularity, which is curable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. There can not, however, be any doubt whatsoever that non-examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation is merely an irregularity, which is curable under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Sudama Singh v. Kavindra Narain Singh, reported in 1973 B.L.J.R. Page 66, a Division Bench of this Court, after taking into consideration various decisions has held as follows :- "In this case, as I have said above, it is not disputed that the Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence did not examine the complainant on oath nor did Shri Jha, the transferee Magistrate, do so. The issuing of this process, therefore, without the examination of the complainant on oath was in violation of the law prescribed in Sec. 200 of the Code. The violation may not vitiate the trial, but it can not be allowed to remain when it comes to the notice of this Court at the appropriate time as in this case." Sudama Singh's case (supra) has been followed by this Court in Jiwachh Jha and ors vs. Narayan Jee Jha and ors. (1973 B.L.J.R. page 592). In this view of the matter the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, this application is allowed, and the order' dated 19.8.1987 passed by Sri I. Hassan, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in Misc. Suit No. 154/86 is set aside and the subsequent proceedings connected therewith in the case are quashed, and the case is remitted to the learned court below, with a direction that he should examine the complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses present in the court, if any and thereupon he will apply his mind on the facts of the case for the purpose of finding out as to whether processes should be issued to accused persons or not in accordance with law. B. P. Sinha, J.- I agree.