ORDER :- The action of the learned magistrate in first convicting the accused of offences under Ss. 380 and 461, I. P. C., trying the case as a warrant case following the procedure Prescribed by S. 251-A, Cr. P. C. since it was instituted on a police report, and then discovering that the accused was an old offender whom he could not adequately punish and therefore committing him to Sessions under Sec. 348 Crl. P. C. - in view of the conviction, Sec. 403 Crl. P. C. would bar a trial by the Sessions Court - is clearly illegal and I am afraid that both the conviction and the commitment have to be set aside - See In re K. Sellandi, ILR 38 Mad 552 : (AIR 1914 Mad 149 (2)). With regard to the commitment, I might observe that by reason of S. 347(1) Crl. P. C. the magistrate was bound to follow the procedure Prescribed by Sec. 207-A. Crl. P. C. That he has not done, the accused having pleaded guilty to the charge and having been convicted on that plea without any evidence being recorded. The commitment is therefore illegal - See Chhadmilal Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 41 . 2. I accept this reference by the Sessions Judge, set aside both the conviction and the commitment of the accused, and direct an inquiry into the case against him under Sec. 207-A Crl. P. C. The inquiry will be held by the District Magistrate or by such other magistrate of competent jurisdiction as the Dist. Magistrate may direct. Reference accepted.