JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Prosecution case may be stated in brief. On 5-3-1964 at about 3-30 p.m. the father of the deceased gave a missing report about his son. On 6-3-1964 at 8 p.m. he gave an unnatural death report after having traced out the wearing apparel of his son in between Hisikhal and Nirgundi. The entire corpse was not available. The upper portion of the head with one ear, a bunch of hair, a portion of the skull, some ribs and his belongings, such as, lenguti, a wrapper, a napkin, a tangi and a kati were found out. The father of the deceased identified the dead body as belonging to his son. In the Committing Court three eye-witnesses were examined. It held that their evidence was inherently incredible. It discussed their evidence very thoroughly and minutely as is usually done by a trial Court. It ultimately recorded the following conclusion So after taking the evidence of the p.ws., considering the documents referred to the Section 173 and examining the accused persons and after giving an opportunity to the accused persons and the prosecution, I am of opinion that the evidence on record and documents disclose no ground for committing the accused persons for trial under Sections 30220134, Indian Penal Code in the Court of Sessions. I, therefore, discharge the accused persons u/s 207A(6), Criminal Procedure Code. Against this order of discharge, Criminal Revision Petition No. 16 of 1964 was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, who thoroughly discussed the entire evidence and came to the following conclusion That a Committing Court cannot sift evidence but record it as an automaton and sent all cases to the Sessions Court like a Post Office, is not the accepted position of law. At that level he is perfectly within his jurisdiction to sort out cases which ought to sent to a Court of Sessions for adjudication and that too only when he is convinced that there is a prima facie case and acceptable evidence to sustain it. I do not see anything wrong about discharge of the accused persons in this case and as such the petition is rejected. Against the order of the Committing Court discharging the accused this criminal revision has been filed. 2. Mr. I do not see anything wrong about discharge of the accused persons in this case and as such the petition is rejected. Against the order of the Committing Court discharging the accused this criminal revision has been filed. 2. Mr. Mohapatra contended that the Courts below were confusion regarding the scope and amplitude of the jurisdiction and powers of the Committing Court u/s 207A(6), Criminal Procedure Code. He contended that the Committing Court was not entitled to try the case and forestall the decision of the Court of Sessions and that the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in discharging the accused despite the existence of the evidence of the eye-witnesses speaking to the murder. The contention requires careful examination. Section 207A(6) may be quoted When the evidence referred to in Sub-section (4) has been taken and the Magistrate has considered all the documents referred to in Section 173 and has, if necessary examined the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him and given the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, such Magistrate shall, if he is of opinion that such evidence and documents disclose no grounds for committing the accused person for trial, record his reasons and discharge him, unless it appears to the Magistrate that such person should be tried before himself or some other Magistrate, in which case he shall proceed accordingly. 3. The amplitude of the power of the Committing Court under this Sub-section is no longer in doubt. Bipat Gope and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1962 S.C.D. 588., settles the controversy. In that case, the Committing Court had discharged the accused as the evidence before it was unreliable, incredible and highly interested. The Magistrate was of opinion that the evidence did not disclose a prima facie case. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court construed the observation of the learned Magistrate in that case thus. In this case, we are clear, on a reading of the reasons recorded by the Magistrate, that he did not stop to find out that there was evidence which, if believed, would establish, at least, a prima facie case but went on further to disbelieve that evidence by elaborate and painstaking process of examination, in aid of which he brought to bear his own appraisal of inconsistencies, improbabilities etc.. In short, he tried the whole case from one end to the other and established his point, as has been said already, in a fairly elaborate order. In this process, he disbelieved the injured person, other eye-witnesses, contrasted the oral testimony of how the offence took place with remedial evidence and his own conclusions drawn from an inspection of the site and other matters, too numerous to detail here. This approach on the part of a Committing Magistrate was disapproved by their Lordships who observed in clearest terms that Section 207A(6) does not entitle a Magistrate to try the case on his own and forestall the decision of the Court of Sessions. Their Lordships accordingly agreed with the High. Court that the order of discharge was to be Bet aside and that the Magistrate went beyond his powers conferred upon him of inquiring into the case with a view to committing to the Court of Sessions. 4. The Courts below, in this case, have fallen into error in overlooking the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. The Committing Court is not a Court of trial but is a Court of inquiry. In this particular case, three eye-witnesses were available. Their evidence discloses a prima facie case. The Committing Court was, therefore, bound to commit the case under Sections 30220134, Indian Penal Code to the Court of Sessions. It was not open to it to disbelieve the evidence of the eyewitnesses by an elaborate and painstaking process of examination. That would be the function of the Court, of Sessions. It might be that in the ultimate trial the Court of Sessions might take the same view which the Committing Court had taken But that is an altogether different matter. The point for examination at this stage is not whether the Committing Court arrived at the correct conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case, but whether it had the jurisdiction to confer upon itself the powers to try the case which lay exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Court of Sessions. I am satisfied that the order of discharge is untenable and must be set aside. 5. In the result, the order of the Magistrate discharging the accused is set aside and he is directed to commit the opposite parties to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial under Sections 30220134, Indian Penal Code. The revision is allowed. I am satisfied that the order of discharge is untenable and must be set aside. 5. In the result, the order of the Magistrate discharging the accused is set aside and he is directed to commit the opposite parties to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial under Sections 30220134, Indian Penal Code. The revision is allowed. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed