JUDGMENT : Knox, J. Dharam Singh has been committed to the Court of Session on charges framed under sections 352 and 447 of the Penal Code, 1860. But the offences upon which he has been committed are what are technically known as summons cases. The Code of Criminal Procedure has prescribed a procedure for the trial of such cases, and Chapter 20 which prescribes that, procedure contains no provision either for framing or writing a charge against the accused person or for committing him to the Court of Session. Even in warrant cases section 254 lays down that when a Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that an accused has committed an, offence, which would or should ordinarily be tried by’ a Magistrate, such Magistrate, when he is of opinion that he can adequately punish an accused person, shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. The law therefore requires that cases of this kind be tried by a Magistrate and not be committed to a Court of Session. I hold that the commitment of Dharam Singh is wrong on a point of law. Firstly, because there is no warrant for the commitment of such cases, and secondly, the maximum punishment under each offence was one which the Magistrate could inflict. I need hardly point out the mistake of committing offenders to a Court of Session when the offences which they appear to have committed are offences which can be adequately punished by Magisterial Courts. A commitment can be quashed only on a point of law and for the reasons given above, I quash the commitment. If the accused is on bail, the bail will be discharged.