JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - This is an application in revision against an order dated 5th June, 1963, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ukhi math, district Chamoli, converting a case under Section 365, I. P. C. into one under Section 366, I. P. C. and then committing it to the court of session as the latter offence was triable exclusively by a court of session. The contention of the applicant is that the Magistrate by adopting that procedure had deprived him of his right to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution and thus had prejudiced his defence. 2. The facts leading to the present application, briefly stated, are, that till 5th June, 1963, the Magistrate had proceeded all along as if the trial was one for a warrant case in respect of an offence punishable under Section 365, I. P. C. The witnesses for the prosecution were examined and the Magistrate gave the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine them. Out of the eight witnesses examined the applicant cross-examined three witnesses but did not cross-examine the remaining five. After the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined the Magistrate, under the provisions of Section 347, Cr, P. C., considered it proper to convert the proceedings into commitment proceedings and to commit the case to the court of session after framing a charge under Section 366, I. P. C. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant did not consider it necessary to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses at the stage of Section 252, Cr. P. C. because he was certain that he will get an opportunity to cross-examine them under Section 256, Cr. P. C. However that stage did not come because the Magistrate converted the proceedings of a warrant case into commitment proceedings and committed the applicant to the court of session after framing a charge under Section 366, I.P.C. 4. The application has been moved on the ground that there has been no compliance with the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 208, Cr. P. C. It was also contended that the applicant was prejudiced on that account. 5. It was a case based on private complaint, and, therefore, the provisions of Section 208, Cr. P. C. were to apply. Sub-Section (2) of Section 208, Cr. P. C. It was also contended that the applicant was prejudiced on that account. 5. It was a case based on private complaint, and, therefore, the provisions of Section 208, Cr. P. C. were to apply. Sub-Section (2) of Section 208, Cr. P. C. provides as follows: "The accused shall be at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, and in such case the prosecutor may re-examine them". 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Reliance has been placed by him on the case of G.L. Biswas v. The State, AIR 1950 Patna 550, where the case was at first tried under Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the accused was given an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses under Section 252, Cr. P. C. before the framing of the charge. After. the proceedings in the warrant case had been converted into commitment proceedings the accused person made an application that he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, some of whom he had not cross-examined because he remained under the impression that he was not required to do so. His application was rejected by the Magistrate. It was held in revision that the order passed by the Magistrate was improper because there was no statutory right under Section 252 Cr. P. C. for the cross-examination of a witness produced before the stage of charge and the statutory right given to the accused under sub-Section (2) of Section 208, Cr. P. C. could not be denied to him. 7. There is a good deal of divergence of opinion on the point whether or not there is a statutory right under See. 252, Cr. P. C. for cross-examination of a witness produced on behalf of the prosecution. It has been held by the High Courts of Nagpur, Sind and Madras, as will appear from the cases reported in Gurudin v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Nagpur 8, Muhammad Rahim v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1935 Sind 13 and W.H. Lockley v. Emperor, AIR 1920 Madras 201 that the statutory right to cross-examine a prosecution witness is there. It has been held by the High Courts of Nagpur, Sind and Madras, as will appear from the cases reported in Gurudin v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Nagpur 8, Muhammad Rahim v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1935 Sind 13 and W.H. Lockley v. Emperor, AIR 1920 Madras 201 that the statutory right to cross-examine a prosecution witness is there. The question was left open in the case of Rex v. Daya Shanker Jaitly, AIR 1950 Allahabad 167 and it was observed as follows : "We are inclined to the view that the accused has a right of cross-examination even before the framing of the charge at the stage contemplated in Section 252, Cr, P. C. but we do not wish to express a definite opinion on the subject, as in the present case it is not necessary for us to do so. Even though under the law the accused may not have a right of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses when they are examined under Section 252, Cr. P. C. still in the present case the accused did get that right as the same was conferred on him by the Magistrate when he permitted him to cross-examine Mr.,Thorpe". 8. It appears that Mr. Thorpe was not available for examination in the Sessions Court. The question arose whether the evidence given by him before the Magistrate could be read in evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was held in the case of Rex v. Daya Shankar Jaitly, AIR 1950 Allahabad 167 that it was admissible because the Magistrate had given the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. 9. The second ground on which the commitment proceedings were quashed in the Patna case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. No application was made by the accused to recall the witness for the prosecution for the purposes of cross-examination. All that the applicant did after the proceedings before the Magistrate had been converted into commitment proceedings was to give the names of the defence witnesses to be examined in the court of session. 10. The applicant was in no way prejudiced because he got an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses but he did not do so for the simple reason that he did not want to reveal his defence. 11. In my opinion it is not a fit case for interference in revision. 10. The applicant was in no way prejudiced because he got an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses but he did not do so for the simple reason that he did not want to reveal his defence. 11. In my opinion it is not a fit case for interference in revision. The application is dismissed.