Process under cognizance may be dispensed with when accused are present on bail and transfer is ordered in their presence.

When accused persons had already appeared and were on bail, a Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report could transfer the case for inquiry or trial without first issuing process under Section 204, because service of process in their presence would be an empty formality. The decisive requirement was that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the police report and found sufficient ground to proceed. The transferee Magistrate could also enforce attendance under the existing bail bond, and the accused's non-appearance on the fixed date justified coercive steps, including cancellation of bail bond and issue of a non-bailable warrant. The challenge to the transfer and subsequent orders therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report must issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 before transferring the case to another Magistrate for inquiry or trial, and whether the transferee Magistrate could cancel the existing bail bond and issue a non-bailable warrant when the accused had already appeared and were on bail.

Analysis: Process under Section 204 is intended to secure the attendance of the accused. Where the accused have already appeared, are on bail, and the order taking cognizance and transferring the case is made in their presence, the issuance of process becomes an empty formality. The absence of a formal process order does not invalidate the transfer when the Magistrate has applied his mind to the police report and found sufficient ground for proceeding. The accused were also bound by the bail bond to attend the court before which the case might be pending, including the transferee court, and their non-appearance on the date fixed justified coercive steps to secure attendance.

Conclusion: The transfer order was not without jurisdiction and the transferee Magistrate was competent to act on the accused's failure to appear. The challenge to both orders failed.

Final Conclusion: The applications were rejected because the impugned orders disclosed no illegality or jurisdictional defect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where accused persons have already appeared and are on bail, a Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report may transfer the case for inquiry or trial without first issuing process under Section 204 if the order is made in their presence and the Magistrate has found sufficient ground to proceed.

---