Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.

1. This application in revision is directed against an order, dated the 19th June, 1973, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Barh, taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sec.323 of the Indian Penal Code and transferring the case for disposal to a Munsif-Magistrate, First Class. By that very order, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate transferred to the same Munsif-Magistrate an application filed before him by petitioner No. 1 for action under Sec. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the complainant-opposite party.

2. According to the petitioners on the 23rd March, 1973. opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, alleging therein that, on the 22nd March, 1973, at about 1-30 p. m., he had kept some bamboos for fencing his land which the petitioners started lifting, which led to an altercation between the two parties. Thereafter, it is alleged that petitioner No. 1 assaulted the complainant with a Khanti on his neck and petitioner No. 2 assaulted him with a lathi. The said petition of complaint was put up before Shree Dincsh Prasad Sinha, Magistrate. First Class, Barh, on the 24th March, 1973. who examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and sent the matter for inquiry under Sec.202 of the Code to Shree O. P. Singh. Magistrate, First Class, Barh. Shree G. P. Singh, after inquiry, submitted a report, which was placed on the 19th June, 1973, before Shree Sadanand Sinha, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Barh, who passed the impugned order. In the said order, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate has observed that he had looked into the inquiry report and, agreeing with the said inquiry report, he was taking cognizance and he transferred the case for disposal to Shree M. M. Verma, Munsif-Magistrate, First Class, for disposal.

3. This case Was first listed for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court who referred it to a Division Bench, and that is how this case has been placed before us.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by Shree Sadanand Sinha, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, on the 19th June, 1973 is wholly without jurisdiction and in contravention of Sec.204 of the Code. According to learned Counsel, only the Magistrate taking cognizance could pass an order under Sec.204 summoning the accused. In the instant case, the initial cognizance was taken by Shree Dinesh Prasad Sinha, and, as such, Shree Sadanand Sinha could not have accepted the inquiry report and pass the impugned order. In this connection reliance has been placed on a judgment of the. Supreme Court in Rajendra Nath Mahto V/s. T. Gangooly -- .

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the complainant-opposite party saying that, on the 19th June, 1973, Shree Dinesh Prasad Sinha had been transferred from Barh, and on the 24th March, 1973 he was acting as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and as such he was competent to pass the order dated the 24th March, 1973.

6. In view of the counter-affidavit, it has to be taken that both the orders have been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. But the only question for determination is as to whether, in a case in which cognizance had been taken by another Magistrate acting as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the regular Sub-Divisional Magistrate can pass an order under Sec.204 of the Code after a consideration of the inquiry report. In the case of Rajendra Nath Mahto -- it has been held that the Magistrate taking cognizance should issue process under Sec.204 of the Code. In the said decision it has been pointed out that the Magistrate to whom the case is transferred for inquiry under Sec.202 can also issue process. Admittedly, the orders dated the 24th March, 1973 and the 19th June, 1973 have been passed by two different Magistrates in the instant case, one acting as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, while the other being the re