( 1 ) I agree to the order proposed to be passed by my learned brother. In view of the elaborate arguments addressed to us on certain aspects of the case and in view of the fact that the case was referred by a learned single Judge to a Bench of two Judges, I wish to add a few observations of my own.

( 2 ) ON the evidence in the case it is clear that the authorities of the Madarsa known as Madarsa miftahu-1ulum have made certain new constructions. The town of Mau was till recently a notified area. Shri Girish Chandra, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Mohammadabad was the chairman of the Notified Area Committee. Soon after the constructions had been completed, a tussle appears to have ensued between the Madarsa authorities on the one hand and those who were interested in the Ram Lila and Bharat Milap on the other. I have no doubt in my mind that at first an attempt was made to have a portion of the new constructions demolished under the orders of the Notified Area authorities. In this the Sub-Divisinal Magistrate, Shri Girish chandra, took a prominent part. This attempt, however, was frustrated because it so happened that the Notified Area Committee, by means of a resolution passed by a majority, declined to order demolition and even passed a resolution to the effect that no encroachment was made on the "rasta. " At this stage, Shri Girish Chandra, acting as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, under section 133, Criminal P. C. , appears to have issued the preliminary order on 12-7-1949. This order was directed against three persons who represented the Madarsa authorities. Shri Girish chandra undoubtedly utilized the information that be possessed in his capacity of the Chairman of the Notified Area Committee in issuing the preliminary order under Section 133, Criminal P. C.

( 3 ) IT was strongly contended by Mr. Vishwa Mitra, the learned counsel for the applicants, that, at the very least it was very improper on the part of Sbri Girish Ohandra to exercise his powers as a Magistrate under Section 133, Criminal P. C. when, as the Chairman of the Notified Area committee, he, along with others, had failed to secure demolition of the building which was alleged to have made an encroachment on public land.

( 4 ) MR. Kanhaiya Lal Misra, the learned Additional Government Advocate, endeavoured to meet this contention of the learned counsel for the applicants by contending that Shri Girish Ohandra was the only Magistrate who could have passed the preliminary order and there could be no transfer of proceedings before the issue of the preliminary order.

( 5 ) TO my mind, there is no force in these contentions of the learned Government Advocate. Under Section 133 (1), Criminal P. C. , besides a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, a District magistrate, or a Magistrate of the first class, is fully competent to take action. It is, therefore, not correct to say that Shri Girish Chandra was the only Magistrate who could have passed the preliminary order under Section 133, Cri. P. C. Further, I am quite clear in my own mind that before issuing the preliminary order under Section 133, Shri Girish Chandra, the Chairman of the notified Area Committee, if he felt that action under Section 133, Cri. P. C. was called for, could have taken appropriate steps and moved the District Magistrate to take action. Under Section 192 (1), Cri. P. C. , any case of which a Sub Divisional, Magistrate has taken cognizance can be transferred by him, for enquiry or trial, to any Magistrate subordinate to him. A case of which he has taken cognizance, means nothing more than that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts of the ease. The words, "any case" are not restricted to offences or criminal cases. The principle underlying the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Kapoor Chand v. Suraj Prasad, 1933 ALL. L. J. 188, clearly supports the view that I have taken. That was a case which related to proceedings under Section 145, Cri. P. C , but the same principle w