JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. The accused in this case have been committed to the Court of Session on charges under sections 148 and 325 of the Penal Code, 1860 by a Magistrate of the first class on the ground that he would not be able adequately to punish the accused in the event of his finding them guilty. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court with the recommendation that the commitment be quashed because the learned Judge is of opinion that the punishment which the Magistrate was competent to award would be sufficient. I see no reason to accede to the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge. Under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code a commitment once made by a competent Magistrate can be quashed by the High Court only on a point of law. The Magistrate was competent under section 207 of the Code, to commit the case if he was of opinion that he could not adequately punish the accused. The commitment was therefore perfectly legal. The Magistrate had a discretion in the matter and to say at this stage that he could award adequate punishment would be prejudging the case. Two bones of the fore-arm of one man were broken and according to the medical evidence the arm might become useless. Another man was so seriously hurt that he had concussion of the brain and remained unconscious for two or three days. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the Magistrate exercised his discretion unwarrantably. Ip any case the commitment was not illegal and cannot therefore be quashed. Let the record be returned.