- (1.) These are two revision petitions, one filed by Hiralal against Sheonarain and others and other filed by Narain against Hiralal and others. Both these petitions are connected and they are disposed of by this judgment, Narain and six others filed a complaint in the court of the District Magis-trate, Alwar, on 12th July 1948 that the complainants were dispossessed of 38 plots of land measuring 167 bighas situated in village Pala, Nizamat Alwar by the opposite party and that there was likelihood of the breach of the peace. The District Magistrate sent the complaint of Narain to the Magistrate, First Class, Alwar, for disposal on 13th July, 1948, who after holding an enquiry, made an order under sec. 145 Cr. P. C. that the complainants be put in possession of the disputed land except a few plots which were allowed to remain in the possession of the subtenants and over which the complai-nants were only allowed a constructive possession. The Sessions Judge in revision confirmed the order of the Magistrate. Hiralal and Narain both have now come in revision before this court. Narain wants that he should be allowed possession of the plots of land, over which possession was nor granted to him by the lower court. Hiralal and others have come with the prayer that they should not have been dispossessed and possession should again be restored to them of the lands, which were given away to Narain and others under the orders of the lower court. The learned advocate for Hiralal and others has argued. 1. that the District Magistrate did not take cognizance of the complaint and transferred the case to the court of the First Class Magistrate but under the provisions of sec. 192 Cr. P. C. it was not open to the District Magistrate to transfer the case to any other Magistrate of which he had not taken cognizance of. The Magistrate making an enquiry in this case, therefore, should be deemed to have had no jurisdiction and consequently the order of the Magistrate should be treated as a nullity.
(2.) That Peareylal, one of the opposite party, was in possession of four plots of land as a sub-tenant of Narain, and, therefore, he should not have been ordered to hand over the possession of these plots to Narain. The cases of a number of plots of land in possession of a number of persons have been lumped together into one case and it was, therefore not possible for the lower court to come to any definite findings regarding the possession of each individual plot of land. The proceedings of lower court should be set aside on the ground THAT it is not legal to join so many cases into one and to hold a single enquiry relating to them It may be observed that the District Magistrate has remarked in his order of transfer that the case appeared to be of a serious nature and that an immediate action was called for. It cannot therefore be inferred that the District Magistrate did not take cognizance of this case when Narain presented his complaint before him. 'taking cognizance' has not been defined anywhere in the Criminal Procedure Code but for purposes of sec. 190 Cr. P. C. taking cognizance of a case should be interpreted to refer to the act of the Magistrate when he first applies his mind to the facts of the case upon receiving a complaint or a police report or information, as the case may be. In some cases, it has been held by some of the High Courts in India that when a Magistrate issues process for the opposite party he should be deemed to have taken cognizance of the case, But it does not necessarily follow that a case cannot be taken cognizance of before the issue of process. It does not seem proper to restrict the scope of the term "taking cognizance of" to a narrow interpretation. Having regard to the meaning of the words used in this term it seems reasonable to infer from it the stage at which a Magistrate at first applies his mind to the facts of a case under sec. 190 Cr. P. C. Taking this view of the term "taking cognizance of" it cannot be said that the District Magistrate did not take cognizance of the complaint when he made the order of transfer, because, had the District Magistrate not applied his mind to the facts constituting the complaint he would not have made the observations that the case was of a serious nature and that an immediate action was called for. Even supposing for a moment for the sake of argument that the District Magistrate did not take cognizance of the case and transferred it to the First Class Magistrate, this would not take away the jurisdiction of the First Class Magistrate to take cognizance of the case himself, because it has not been shown that the First Class Magistrate who held an inquiry in the present case was not invested with the powers to take cognizance of cases under sec. 190 Cr. P. C. Further under sec. 529 (f) Cr. P. C. transfer of a case under sec. 192 if erroneously made in good faith is validated. In it has been held that if a Magistrate transfers the case erroneously and in good faith to a subordinate Magistrate believing that he has power to transfer, sec. 529 (f) applies and the trial of the case by the subordinate Magistrate is not rendered invalid on that account. The proceedings of the First Class Magistrate in the present case cannot, therefore, be treated as a nullity. As regards the second point raised by the learned advocate for Hiralal and others, it has been argued by the advocate of Narain that Piarey-lal, Moolchand and Hiralal never raised the plea that they or any one of them were in possession of any of the plots of the disputed land. It is evident from the record that Piareylal, Moolchand and Hiralal did not take the position that they or any one of them were in possession of the disputed land as subtenants of Narain. They are, therefore, trying to set up a new case in this court, which they are not entitled to do. Further even though a single enquiry has been made in the present case relating to several plots of land in possession of several persons, the advocate of Hiralal has net been able to show that this has occasioned a failure of Justice in any way. The authorities of do not help the case of Hiralal and others, because on account of holding a single enquiry in the present case the parties have not been prejudiced in any way. Even though Narain has filed a a revision and has prayed that he may be allowed the possession of the plots of land, which have been allowed to remain in the possession of his subtenants, yet at the time this case was argued the learned advocate of Narain did not press his case. Consequently, it is not necessary to discuss the merits of this case. Both the revision petitions are therefore dismissed. .;