Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.

This application is directed against an order dated the 3rd June, 1974 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, in exercise of powers conferred 'on him under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the (new Code), by which, after looking into the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses examined in course of the inquiry, the learned Magistrate held that a prima facie case under section 148, 447, 452, 380 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioners. Accordingly he summoned the petitioners to stand their trial.

2. On the 1st October, 1973, a complaint was filed by Griwardhari Mahto against the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patna City, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners, along with eight other persons, came in the office room of the complainant Headmaster of Mahanth Harihar Das High school, Poonadih, armed with lathi, bhala, garasa etc., and abused the complainant. When the complainant protested; the petitioners asked him to keep quiet otherwise he would be killed. Thereafter, the petitioners took away registers, books and a small trunk belonging to the complainant, containing Rs.400/-. The said complaint was ordered to be put up on the 13th October, 1973, when the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation, sent the case for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the (old Code) to Shree C. Rajak, Magistrate, 1st Class, before whom: witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant. In his report, dated the 4th February, 1974, the inquiring Magistrate was of the view that there was a dispute regarding the office of the Headmaster of the School and the complaint was the result of that dispute. Accordingly, he recommended that the complaint be dismissed. The said report was placed before the learned Judicial Magistrate on the 3rd June, 1974, when he passed the impugned order, differing from the report of the inquiring Magistrate, and summoned the accused-petitioners as stated before.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the legality of the said order, dated the 3rd June, 1974, on the ground that, on the 3rd June, 1974, the learned Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to consider the inquiry report and to pass an order summoning the petitioners, in view of the fact that, al though the new Code had come into force on the 1st April, 1974, none-the-less it was a case which was covered by sub-section (2) of section 484 of the new Code and the order summoning the accused petitioners should have been passed only by the Sub-divisional Magistrate who had initially taken cognizance. Alternatively, it was submitted that, even if it is held that the new Code is applicable to the present case, still the Judicial Magistrate could not be said to be the temporary or permanent successor-in-office of the Magistrate who had taken cognizance under section 190 (1) (a) of the old Code.

4. The petition of complaint had, no doubt, been placed before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, who had examined the complainant on solemn affirmation of the 13th October, 1973, and, as such, it will be deemed that cognizance had been taken by that very Sub-divisional Magistrate. Section 204 of the old Code prescribed that if, in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence, there was sufficient ground for proceeding, then he could issue summons or warrant, as the case might be. Whether any other Magistrate could exercise this power under section 204 has been the subject-matter of controversy. But, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Nath Mahto Vs. T. Gangooly and the Full Bench of this Court in Krishnadeo Prasad Vs. Mt. Bundhni, it has been settled that the power under section 204 of the old Co