This is an application to us in revision to set aside an order under sec. 145, C. Cr. P., on the ground that it was made by a magistrate who had no authority to try the case. The order under sec. 145(1) was made by a magistrate of the first class, not being a District Magistrate or a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and he transferred the case to another magistrate in the same locality. It is contended that under the terms of sec. 192(2), the magistrate, although he may be empowered to transfer cases, was so empowered only to transfer an enquiry or trial relating to an accusation or charge of an offence. The terms of that sub-section seem to bear out this view. The transfer could only have been properly made by an officer as described in sec. 192(1). The question, however, still remains whether the proceedings taken by the magistrate under the transfer were necessarily nail and void. We think under the terms of sec. 529(f) they are valid. The order of transfer was made by a magistrate, not empowered by law in that behalf, erroneously and in good faith and it is sought to set aside the proceedings merely on the ground of the magistrate not being so empowered. We have had quoted to us the case of Queen-Empress v. Chedda. But that case is not in point inasmuch as under no circumstance could the magistrate who erroneously tendered the conditional pardon have been empowered to make such an order. In the present case the magistrate of the first class might possibly be empowered as a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or District Magistrate in either of which capacity he would have power to transfer the case.
It is not necessary to refer to the other points raised before us. The application is refused.
H.P.C
Application refused.