Judgment Anant Singh, J. 1. The petition has been filed for quashing the proceeding of commitment made by a magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City, to the Court of Session, obviously at Patna on the following charge : That you, on or about the 27-7-1960 to 9-8-1960 at Dhillon Transport Agency, Laharfara Varanasi fraudulently or dishonestly used as genuine a certain document to wit--truck Receipt No. 7560, which you knew or had reason to believe at the time you used it, to be a forged document ..........." 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel, Mr. Shamsul ilassan, appearing for the petitioner, that on the charge, as it stands, the criminal courts at Patna have no jurisdiction to try the case he cause the petitioner happens to be a resident of Varanasi and the alleged offence is said to have been committed at Varanasi situate within the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. 3. There were certain goods of the complainant carried from Patna City to Varanasi by trucks belonging to Dhillon Transport Agency, which has its office at Patna City and another office at Varanasi. The petitioner happens to be the delivery clerk at the Varanasi office. The allegation is that the goods to which this case relates were carried by a truck of the Dhillon Transport Agency and the truck receipt No. 7560 was delivered to the complainant at the Patna City office. The said goods were entrusted to Raja Ram and Buxi Singh for being carried to the office of the Dhillon Transport Agency at Varanasi. The further allegation is that a truck receipt was forged and it was by using that forged receipt that the petitioner Saghir Hassan allowed the delivery of the goods to a wrong man. So far as it appears from the order of commitment of the learned magistrate, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. The commitment order, as it is, does not disclose whether the receipt, ON the basis of which the delivery of the goods had been taken, was in fact forged by the petitioner or used by him at any other place than Varanasi. The charge framed discloses that it had been used at Varanasi. If this be the only allegation, there appears to be no doubt that the Patna Courts can have no jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioner. The charge framed discloses that it had been used at Varanasi. If this be the only allegation, there appears to be no doubt that the Patna Courts can have no jurisdiction to try the case against the petitioner. On the authority of a decision in the case of Mt. Bhagwatia V/s. Emperor, ILR 3 Pat 417 : (AIR 1925 Pat 187), it has been urged by learned counsel for the (petitioner that the commitment proceeding should be quashed, when it does not disclose that any part of the offence, with which the petitioner is charged, was committed within the jurisdiction of the courts at Patna. The position has, however, since the amended provisions of Sec.207-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, changed. This new section provides for commitment of an accused to the Court of Session even without examination of all the evidence which might be led on behalf of the prosecution. In view of the provisions of Sec.207-A, the inquiring magistrate can now commit an accused to the Court of Session even on the report of the police under Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 674 : "Under Sec.207-A in a proceeding instituted on a police report, the magistrate is bound to take evidence of only such eye-witnesses as are actually produced by the prosecution in Court The Magistrate if he is of opinion that it is in the interest of justice to take evidence, whether of eye-witnesses not produced by the prosecution or others, has a duty to do so. If the Magistrate is not of that opinion and if the prosecution has not examined any eye-witnesses, he has jurisdiction to discharge or commit the accused to sessions merely en the basis of the documents referred to in Sec.173. The discretion of the magistrate under Sub-section (4) is a judicial discretion and therefore, in appropriate cases the order of discharge or committal, as the case may be is liable to be set aside by a superior Court." Thus, at this stage, it is not possible to decide whether any part of the offence complained of was committed within the jurisdiction of the courts at Patna. At this stage, one may not be sure as to what other evidence will be available against the petitioner at the trial. At this stage, one may not be sure as to what other evidence will be available against the petitioner at the trial. The allegations are that the goods in question were entrusted to Raja Ram and Buxi Singh, both of Dhillon Transport Agency, for being carried to Varanasi and the goods were carried by a truck of the Dhillon Transport Agency to Varanasi where they are said to have been delivered on the basis of a forged receipt to a wrong person by the petitioner. It is possible that there might be other offence to connect the petitioner with the crime, any part of which might have been committed within the jurisdiction of the courts at Patna. It is no longer possible for an inquiring magistrate to decide the question of jurisdiction unless all the evidence has been led and exhausted by the prosecution before commitment. There is nothing to indicate that the prosecution had no more evidence to lead at the. enquiry stage. The question of jurisdiction, in view of the altered position of the law has, now to be decided by the Court of Session, 4 The court of session is now bound to proceed with the trial of a case committed to it on the basis of the charge framed by the committing court. Sec.226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the court of session to modify, amend or alter the charge, as the case may be. The question of jurisdiction must, therefore, be decided now by the court of session. If, on the evidence available or adduced before it, it appears that no part of the offence was committed in any area within the jurisdiction of the courts at Patna, but the offence with which the petitioner may be charged before the court of session was committed beyond its jurisdiction, it would be open to the court to discharge the petitioner. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn my attention to the fact that a petition taking objection to the jurisdiction of the inquiring magistrate had been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 8-3-1961 but the inquiring magistrate did not give his decision in this regard, It would appear that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution was closed by 1-3-1961 and the petition taking objection to the jurisdiction of the learned magistrate was filed on 8-3-1961, whereas the commitment order was made on 10-3-1961. The learned magistrate should have done well to have given his decision on this point. Since, however, the aforesaid petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner after the close of the evidence, it cannot be definitely said that the prosecution had no evidence to lead regarding the commission of any Part of the offence within, the jurisdiction of the courts at Patna. 6. Subject to the observations made above, the application is dismissed.