Judgment :- 1. This is an application to quash the order of the Sub Magistrate, Chowghat, committing the accused in P.E. case 3 of 1964 for trial to the Court of Session, Trichur. P.E. 3 of 1964 was taken on file on a private complaint by the second respondent in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on 27-3-1964. In respect of the same incident the second respondent's son had sent a petition to the Dy. S.P. Irinjalakuda. On that, a case was registered and investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police and as a result of the said investigation the police laid a charge sheet against four accused persons who are accused 3 to 6 in P.E. 3 of 1964. That case is C.C. 593 of 1964. On the application of the petitioners that case has been transferred by the District Magistrate, Trichur to the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Kunnamkulam and is pending trial before the said Sub Divisional Magistrate. 2. Besides Pw.1 and his son, Pw. 6, four other witnesses Pws. 2 to 5 were examined in support of the prosecution case. After the conclusion of the prosecution witnesses the case was posted to 11-9-1964 for the examination of the defence witnesses. The petitioners filed a list of 10 persons to be examined as defence witnesses and the Magistrate directed issue of process. Necessary batta was deposited, and all the witnesses were said to have been present in court pursuant to the summons issued by the court. But on that day, it is now conceded, the counsel for the complainant was absent and the Magistrate adjourned the case to 29-9-1964. 3. On 29-9-64 the petitioners presented two petitions, one for treating the two cases as case and counter and for joint trial and another for adjournment of the case to enable them to get their defence witnesses. On that day only four witnesses were present in court and out of those, three witnesses were examined as Dws.1 to 3, but the rest of the witnesses, it would appear, were not willing to appear in the absence of summons. The accused gave a list of witnesses and wanted to examine them. Learned Sub Magistrate dismissed the petitions and passed orders committing the petitioners along with the other accused for trial to the court of session. The accused gave a list of witnesses and wanted to examine them. Learned Sub Magistrate dismissed the petitions and passed orders committing the petitioners along with the other accused for trial to the court of session. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this petition filed under S.215 Cr. P.C. 4. It was contended before me that the commitment is illegal as no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioners to adduce defence evidence and this has resulted in great prejudice to the petitioners. Reference may, in this connection, be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chadamilal Jain v. State of U.P. (AIR. 1960 SC. 41), where it has been held that if the accused is denied the opportunity of leading evidence, which he has a right to do under S.208, the denial of such right is sufficient to cause prejudice to the accused and S.537 would have no application to such a case. 5. Dealing with the powers contained in S.207A & contrasting it with the corresponding provisions of S.208 Cr. P.C., the Supreme Court in a recent decision in State of West Bengal v. Tulsidas Mundhra (1963) 1 S.C.W.R. 44 stated: "In other words in regard to proceedings tried under S.208, an accused person is entitled to lead evidence in defence and the Magistrate is bound to allow such evidence to be led, except, of course, where he comes to the conclusion that such evidence need not be led in which case he has to record his reasons for coming to that conclusion". 6. So unless the court comes to the conclusion that it is unnecessary to examine the witnesses the Magistrate is bound under Cl. (3) to S.208 to issue process for the attendance of the defence witnesses. No reference has been made in the order of committal why he did not allow the witnesses to be examined on the side of the defence. The witnesses had once been summoned and it was, therefore, up to the Magistrate to enforce their attendance. The accused have, thus been deprived of their right to lead defence evidence. The commitment is, therefore, bad in law and has to be quashed. 7. The witnesses had once been summoned and it was, therefore, up to the Magistrate to enforce their attendance. The accused have, thus been deprived of their right to lead defence evidence. The commitment is, therefore, bad in law and has to be quashed. 7. The order of commitment as well as the charges framed are hereby quashed and the case is sent back to the learned Magistrate to proceed according to law after issuing process to the witnesses whom the accused wants to examine. Send back the papers promptly. Allowed.