VIRENDRA SARAN, J, J. ( 1 ) THIS transfer application has been filed by Shami Khan and Riyaz Ahmad seeking transfer of Case No. 146/115 pending in the Court of Shri Ganesh Prasad Srivastava, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri to some other competent Court. ( 2 ) THE applicants had filed Transfer Application No. 186/94 before the learned Sessions Judge for the same relief but the learned Sessions Judge, Kheri dismissed the application observing that in view of the law laid down in the case of State of Gujarat v. Rati Lal Uttam Chand Morabia according to which a transfer application could be made only to the District Magistrate and no transfer application was maintainable before the Court of Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge did not enter into the merits of the transfer application. ( 3 ) CHAPTER XXXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) contains the provisions regarding transfer of criminal cases. Section 406 deals with the powers of the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals; Section 407 of the Code deals with High Courts power to transfer cases and appeals; Section 408 deals with the powers of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals. Section 408 (1) states: p408 (1) Whenever it is made to appear to a Sessions Judge that an order under this subsection is expedient for the ends of justice he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his Sessions Division. Sections 409, 410 and 411 deal with withdrawal and making over of cases. Section 409 deals with powers of Sessions Judge to withdraw cases and appeals and Section 411 deals with powers of District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate to withdraw and make over cases in given circumstances. It is clear from the provisions of Chapter XXXI that the Legislature has taken care and has drawn a distinction between power to transfer and with drawal of cases. There may be cases where power to transfer a case or to withdraw a case may be exercised in similar circumstances. The distinction between the two powers is thin, but it is there. The Legislature has taken care to vest the Sessions Judge with power to transfer criminal cases from one Criminal Court within his Sessions Division to another Court, as is clear from Section 408 (1) of the Code. The distinction between the two powers is thin, but it is there. The Legislature has taken care to vest the Sessions Judge with power to transfer criminal cases from one Criminal Court within his Sessions Division to another Court, as is clear from Section 408 (1) of the Code. ( 4 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has relied upon the case of State of Gujarat v. Rati Lal Uttam Chand Morabia (supra ). I have carefully dealt upon the points articulated in the above decision and with profound respect. I am unable to subscribe to the view of the Gujarat High Court that the Sessions Judge has no power to transfer a criminal case under Section 145 of the Code from one Sub- Divisional Magistrate to another in the same Sessions Division. The Gujarat High Court has failed to take into account the distinction between the power of transfer and power of withdrawal of cases. The Gujarat High Court relied upon another case of Ram Chandra Negoli Kadam v. State of Maharashtra. So far as the Bombay case is concerned the High Court did not articulate regarding the power of Sessions Judge to transfer criminal cases in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 408 of the Code but it was dealing with the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 435 of the Code. However, the Sessions Judge can exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 435 of the Code and even on that point. I am not in agreement with the view taken in Bombay case because the Court of Session exercises revisional jurisdiction over the orders of all inferior Criminal Courts. The Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate is certainly an inferior Criminal Court in the Sessions Division and the Court of Sessions Judge, thus is competent to entertain a revision against a final order under Section 145 of the Code. ( 5 ) SECTION 6 of the Code enumerates classes of Criminal Courts. It reads as follows: ( 6 ) BESIDES the High Courts and the Courts constituted under any law other than this Code, there shall be in every State, the following classes of Criminal Courts, namely: (i) Court of Session; (ii) Judicial Magistrates of the First Class and, in any metropolitan area, Metropolitan Magistrates; (iii) Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class, and (iv) Executive Magistrates. Section 20 (1) of the Code deals with the power of the State Government to appoint Executive Magistrates and to appoint one of them as District Magistrate, Similarly. Section 20 (2) of the Code deals with the power of the State Government to appoint n Executive Magistrate to be an Additional District Magistrate, Section 20 (4) deals with the power of the State Government to appoint Executive Magistrate to be called the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 6. It is clear that in a Sessions Division, the Court of Session is at the top in the hierarchy of Courts. Section 408 of the Code vests jurisdiction in the Court of Session to transfer one case or an appeal from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same Sessions Division. ( 7 ) IN the premise, I am of the view that the Sessions Judge is competent to transfer proceedings under Section 145 of the Code from one Sub-Divisional Magistrate to another Court of competent jurisdiction in the same Sessions Division and the learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that the transfer application did not lie. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, this application is allowed and it is directed that the learned Sessions Judge shall again decide the transfer application on merits and pass suitable orders. Petition allowed. Matter remanded. .