JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioners laid a complaint on 29-10-1965 implicating the Officer-in-Charge of the Mangalabag Police Station and another in the offenses punishable under Sections 330, 348 and 448, Indian Penal Code. After an enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure the complaint was dismissed. Subsequently, under orders of the Court of revision, the matter was re-enquired and on 1-5-1967 the accused persons were summoned. Evidence was given and as some of the offences referred to above were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate took into account the evidence on record to find out whether it was a fit case to commit the accused persons to stand their trial in the Court of sessions. By the impugned order dated 17-5-1969 the learned ?Magistrate discharged the accused. This revision application is directed against the said action of the trying Magistrate. 2. The main attack is that the committing Magistrate has exceeded his powers as a Court of committal and has usurped the functions of the Sessions Judge. 3. Since the proceedings was instituted on a complaint, Sections 208 and 209, Code of Criminal Procedure apply. Section 208 of the Code authorises receipt of evidence in support of the prosecution as also on behalf of the accused and Section 209 provides: When the evidence referred to in Section 208 Sub-sections (1) and (3), has been taken, And he has (if necessary) examined the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, such Magistrate shall, if he finds that there are not sufficient 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.... The scope of this section was indicated recently by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Alamohan Das and Ors. v. The state of West Bengal AIR 970 S.C. 863. Their Lordships stated: In terms Section 209 applies to cases which are instituted otherwise than on a police report. But the principle underlying that section applies to cases which are instituted on a police report. A Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine. v. The state of West Bengal AIR 970 S.C. 863. Their Lordships stated: In terms Section 209 applies to cases which are instituted otherwise than on a police report. But the principle underlying that section applies to cases which are instituted on a police report. A Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record, but only for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment, and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. If there is no ?Prima facie evidence or the evidence is totally unworthy of credit, it is his duty to discharge the accused : if there is some evidence on which a conviction may reasonably be based, he must commit the case. The Magistrate at that stage has no power to evaluate the evidence for satisfying himself of the guilt of the accused. The question before the Magistrate at that stage is whether there is some credible evidence which would sustain a conviction. 4. On examining the facts of this case and the approach advanced by the learned Magistrate, I am not in a position to hold that he actually exceeded his jurisdiction and usurped the functions of the trial Court. The commitment proceeding cannot be taken to be allow formality and as rightly indicated in the aforesaid decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the Magistrate to sift the evidence to find out whether there is any material which, if accepted, would reasonably bring about a conviction. In the present case, the learned magistrate seems to have done the same and nothing more. I do not think, the matter warrants any interference. The observation of the learned Magistrate at the end of his order that p.ws. 5 and 8 had spoken falsely does not appear to be justified either. There is no need for initiating a proceeding for the alleged perjury. Thus while dismissing the revision petition and upholding the order of the learned Magistrate on merit I would quash the direction regarding taking of further proceedings on account of perjury. 5. The revision petition is dismissed subject to the aforesaid directions. Final Result : Dismissed