JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Some of the accused persons were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial under Sections 149 and 302, Indian Penal Code and others u/s 302/109, Indian Penal Code. On 16-8.1965 the accused appeared before the Sessions Judge and filed an application that the commitment should be quashed as the Committing Magistrate did not examine a single eye-witness and apply his mind to the question of necessity for examining such witnesses. This application was treated as Criminal Revision. The learned Sessions Judge has made a reference that the commitment should be quashed. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Committing Court on 23-4-1965 is to the effect: Accused persons present.P. Ws. present. The Prosecution Inspector has reported that he is busy in another case. Hence he cannot take up the case. The witnesses have returned 2 times without being examined. I do not think it proper to adjourn the case as applied by the Prosecution Inspector. The learned Magistrate perused the Case Diary and the connected papers, discussed the materials on record and ultimately committed the accused persons. 2. Section 207 -A(4), Criminal Procedure lays down: The Magistrate shall then proceed to take the evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged; and if the Magistrate is of opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice to take the evidence of anyone or more of the other witnesses for the prosecution, he may take such evidence also. The learned Sessions Judge held that failure to examine witnesses produced by the prosecution as to actual commission of the offence entails a flagrant violation of Section 207-A(4), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Government Advocate, however, contends that even though the prosecution witnesses were present, the Prosecuting Inspector reported that he was not in a position to conduct the case, and, as such, to examine the witnesses. According to him, if the prosecution did not propose to examine the witnesses, they cannot be said to have been produced in Court merely because of their physical presence. The contention has full force. According to him, if the prosecution did not propose to examine the witnesses, they cannot be said to have been produced in Court merely because of their physical presence. The contention has full force. Though the conduct of the Prosecuting Inspector is not excusable in reporting that was busy in another case and could not take up the case, the fact remains that the prostitution was not ready to examine the witnesses present in Court. I accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate. The view of the learned Sessions Judge on this point is not correct. 3. Section 207-A(4) of the Code, however, is in two parts: The second part says that the Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case and see if it is necessary in the interest of justice to take the evidence of other witnesses for the prosecution, not produced by it. If the witnesses were present in Court and were not examined by the prosecution, it was the bounden duty of the Magistrate to have considered under the Sub-section if he would examine some of the witnesses in the interest of justice. If, after applying his mind and giving reasons he would be of opinion that it was not necessary, no exception can be taken to such a view. In the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Kirpal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, their Lordships have clearly stated: A Magistrate failing to examine the witnesses to the actual commission of the offence, because they were not produced, without considering what is necessary in the interest of justice to examine such witnesses, in our judgment, fails in the discharge of his duties. It has been sometimes argued that the observation of the Supreme Court merely gives a guiding advice to the Magistrates. It is not so. In that particular case, before the Supreme Court, there was a full trial and conviction. The evidence in the case was examined and their Lordships held that though there was a violation of the provisions of Section 207-A(4), there was no prejudice to the accused. This observation has, however, full force and must be followed by all Magistrates during committal proceeding. The observation cannot be explained as not laying down a mandatory injunction. 4. The evidence in the case was examined and their Lordships held that though there was a violation of the provisions of Section 207-A(4), there was no prejudice to the accused. This observation has, however, full force and must be followed by all Magistrates during committal proceeding. The observation cannot be explained as not laying down a mandatory injunction. 4. The learned Committing Court ought to have applied its mind to the case in accordance with the provisions of Section 207.A(4), Code of Criminal Procedure and decide whether it should have examined some of the witnesses, not produced, in the interest of justice. On this ground, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge can be supported. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference is accepted. The commitment is quashed and the committing Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of Section 207-A(4), Code of Criminal Procedure and the observations made above. Reference accepted.