ORDER 1. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court, to quash the commitment under Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code. Under that section the commitment can be quashed only on a point of law. 2. The accused was charged with having committed the offence of murder, riot, grievous hurt, and house-trespass. The Judge says that there is no evidence that Sinna Goundan who is alleged to have been murdered is dead, and there is also no evidence that any grievous hurt was caused. The other offences are triable by the magistrate. If he commitment is allowed to stand, the accused will have to be acquitted on the charge of murder but the Sessions Judge is of opinion that the case is one for further inquiry and the acquittal might preclude the police from making any such inquiry. He therefore asks us to quash the commitment on the ground that there is no evidence to justify the commitment. We are of opinion that on this ground it is not open to the High Court to quash a commitment. The accused is entitled to be acquitted if there is no evidence against him to support a conviction. The result of quashing the commitment will be that he may be charged again with the offence. The Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to the cases reported in Emperor v. Suleman Ibrahim (1911) 13 Bom. L.R. 209 Empress v. Narotam Das (1883) I.L.R. 6 A. 98; and Emperor v. Chandra Kumara Missur (1905) 2 C.L.J. 46. 3. We are unable to follow the Allahabad decision. The Bombay Judgment supports our view.