Order:- Petitioner, T.K. Appu Nair seeks to revise the order of the Seventh Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, in C.C. No. 18728 of 1962 on his file dismissing the petition to convert the calendar case into a P.R.C. case. The petitioner’s grievance is that the offence committed by the accused is really one under section 220, Indian Penal Code, which is triable by a Court of Session and hence the case should have been converted into a P.R.C. case. The case was initiated on a private complaint filed by the petitioner. According to the averments in the private complaint, the accused committed offences punishable under sections 342 and 325 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. Three witnesses were examined before the Seventh Presidency Magistrate. P.W.1 is the complainant. P.W. 2, John, deposed that he went and enquired at the Police Station at the request of the complainant’s wife, and he does not personally know the acts committed by the accused. P.W. 3 is the doctor who examined the complainant. His evidence shows that the injuries sustained by the petitioner were simple. Hence the learned Seventh Presidency Magistrate framed charges against the accused under sections 325 and 342 read with 34, Indian Penal Code. The evidence of P.W. 1 is in conformity with the averments made in his complaint. According to the accused the petitioner cnmmitted a prohibition offence and he was arrested and kept in police custody. But the case of the petitioner is that arrack was forcibly poured into his mouth and he was taken and confined at the Police Station. If the averments are true, the accused would be guilty of having foisted false prohibition case against the petitioner, apart from causing him simple hurt and wrongfully confining him. Every unlawful commitment to confinement will not, by itself, warrant the legal inference of malice. In order to bring the case under section 220, Indian Penal Code, it should be alleged and proved that the person in office corruptly or maliciously confined a person wrongfully The necessary averments have not been made in the complaint and they have not. also been spoken to by P.W. 1. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that he had other witnesses to prove the necessary mens rea required under section 220, Indian Penal Code, and that the said witnesses have not been examined. also been spoken to by P.W. 1. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that he had other witnesses to prove the necessary mens rea required under section 220, Indian Penal Code, and that the said witnesses have not been examined. In a private complaint in respect of a case triable under warrant procedure, the Magistrate is entitled to frame charges for the offences mentioned in the complaint as some witnesses are examined to prove the ingredients required for the said offences. I have already referred to the fact that the complaint filed by the petitioner was only under sections 342 and 325 read with 34, Indian Penal Code. The medical evidence did not justify the charge under section 325, Indian Penal Code. Hence the only charges that could be framed on the complaint are for offences under sections 342 and 323 read with 34, Indian Penal Code and the said charges have been framed in the case. Section. 347(1), Criminal Procedure Code, provides that in any enquiry or trial before a Magistrate, before signing a judgment, the Magistrate shall commit the accused to the Court of Sessions, if it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session. It is open to the learned Seventh Presidency Magistrate to invoke section 347(1), Criminal Procedure Code, and exercise his judicial discretion to commit the accused at any stage of the case if he thinks fit to do so. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case there is nothing in the order of the learned Seventh Presidency Magistrate which requires to be revised by this Court. The Criminal Revision case is therefore dismissed. V.K. ------ Petition dismissed.