Order.- This is to revise the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,. Kurnool, refusing to examine the witnesses who were already examined by another Magistrate before the case was transferred to his file by the High Court. This case was originally on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal and he examined some witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 12. The petitioner moved the High Court for transfer of the case to another Court and it would appear that the High Court transferred the case from the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal to the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. When the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool took up the case for trial, the accused filed an application for examination of all the witnesses who were already examined by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool dismissed the application on the ground that what was prayed for was a de novo trial and that he cannot permit a de novo trial under section 350(3), Criminal Procedure Code. It is from this order of the learned Magistrate that this revision arises. Mr. Ella Reddy appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to section 350, Criminal Procedure Code, and contended that there is nothing in the section which would preclude an accused person from asking for examination of all the witnesses already examined by another Magistrate if it would serve the interests of justice. In support of his contention, he has invited my attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in In re, Ganesa Pillai1, where Somasundaram, J., dealing with the scope of section 192(1) and section 528(2) Criminal Procedure Code, observed: “This is consistent With the interpretation sought to be given by Sri Sundaravaradan that When the case was transferred at the stage at Which this was transferred to a new Magistrate, he should examine the Witnesses afresh and dispose of the case. That is to Say, there must be a fresh trial When it is transferred to him as the expression used”for enquiry or trial“means full trial and not a partial trial based on the evidence partly recorded by him and on the evidence recorded by the other Magistrate from whose file the case was transferred. That is to Say, there must be a fresh trial When it is transferred to him as the expression used”for enquiry or trial“means full trial and not a partial trial based on the evidence partly recorded by him and on the evidence recorded by the other Magistrate from whose file the case was transferred. In this view, inasmuch as the sub-Divisional Magistrate has not examined all the witnesses afresh, the conviction is vitiated by this illegality.” With great respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to agree with the view taken by him. Section 350, Criminal Procedure Code, as amended reads: “Section 350(1).-Whenever any Magistrate, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an inquiry or a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded by another Magistrate who has and who exercises such jurisdiction, the Magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly recorded by his predecessor and partly recorded by himself; provided that if the succeeding Magistrate is of opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interests of justice, he may re-summon any Such witness and after such further examination, cross-examination and re-examination, if any, as he may permit, the witness shall be discharged.” The application made by the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate is not for further cross-examination of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded, but for examination of all the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded. There is nothing in section 350, Criminal Procedure Code, which gives the right to an accused person for de novo examination of all the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded. If the interpretation given by the learned Counsel is to be accepted, that would amount to importing something in the language of section 350 which is not there. A Bench of this Court in In re Ibrahim Ali1, observed: “It is not without significance that section 350, Criminal Procedure Code, as amended in 1955 does not recognise the right of an accused to ask for a de novo trial even before a Magistrate, the Magistrate himself being given the discretion further to examine any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of Justice. This statutory provision does not seem to assume the existence of any such rule. The decision of the Supreme Court in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P.2, seems to us to have some bearing upon this matter.” It is also relevant to notice in this connection that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by refusing to summon all the witnesses. If the petitioner or his Counsel had felt that the witnesses were required for further cross-examination it was open to the party to make the necessary application in that behalf under sect: on 350, Criminal Procedure Code, and that has not been done in this case. As their Lord ships of the Supreme Court pointed out in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P.2 that “except where there is something so vital as to cut at the root of jurisdiction or so abhorrent to what one might term natural justice, the matter resolves itself to a question of prejudice.” There is absolutely no violation of the provisions of the Code and therefore there is no question of any denial of natural justice to the petitioner herein My learned brother Sharfuddin Ahmed, J., in Criminal Appeal No. 342 of 1962 (disposed of on 20th March, 1963 (unreported) when a similar question arose and when his attention was invited to the decision of the Madras High Court in In re Ganesa Pillai3 held: “The observation of the learned Sessions Judge however with reference to In re, Ganasa Pillai3 does not seem to be correct; for under, section 350(3), Criminal Procedure Code, it has been specifically laid down that when a case is transferred under the provisions of this Code from one Magistrate to another, the former shall be deemed to cease to exercise jurisdiction there and to be succeeded by the latter within the meaning of sub-section (1). According to sub-section (1) of section 350, the Magistrate may examine the witness de novo if he deems it necessary in the interests of justice. There is no room for any distinction in regard to proceedings made under section 528 (1) or 528(2), Criminal Procedure Code.” Having regard to the view adopted by this Court, I must say that this Revision Petition is devoid of merits. It is therefore dismissed. K.N.R. ----- Revision dismissed.