JUDGMENT -A summons case under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 has been filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay against the present petitioner. The Deputy Chief Controller is required to do so under section 6 of the said Act. Another complaint by police has also been filed on July 27, 1971 against the petitioner under sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code and also for an offence under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The petitioner is the Manager of Auto and Tools Agencies, Bombay and accused No.2 is the partner. The petitioner applied on June 15, 1964 to the Office of the Joint Chief Controller, Imports and Exports, Bombay as the Manager or the said firm for grant of import licence to import motor vehicle parts. The Joint Chief Controller issued three import licences valued at Rs. 1,000,4,904-, and 1,000 dated July 2, 1964, June 23, 1964 and July 2, 1964 respectively to the said firm for the import of new motor vehicle parts. The petitioner applied on June 26, 1964 to the office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay for endorsements on the above-said import licences permitting the firm of the accused to import army disposal vehicle parts. The Joint Chief Controller, however did not accede to the request of the said firm. 2. It is in the above-said circumstances that the petitioner again applied in April and June 1965 for the grant of duplicate copies of the said import licences stating that the licences which were granted were either misplaced or lost. The applications were supported by the affidavits of accused No.3. On the basis of these applications the Joint Chief Controller issued duplicate copies of the licences to the petitioners firm. But it appears that the firm had already imported some consignment of second hand military disposal vehicle parts on the licences bearing forged endorsements prior to the receipt of the duplicate copies of the above-said licences. The petitioner cleared the goods through their clearing agent. It appears that the petitioner later, on the ground that the original set of import licences which was lost was traced, delivered them to the customs authorities through their clearing agents. The petitioner cleared the goods through their clearing agent. It appears that the petitioner later, on the ground that the original set of import licences which was lost was traced, delivered them to the customs authorities through their clearing agents. These circumstances raised suspicion in the minds of the customs authorities and they thought that the endorsements on the copies of the licences meant for the customs were forged by the petitioner and his firm. During the course of the inquiry the customs authorities found that the petitioner and his firm placed orders for the import of army disposal vehicle parts knowing fully well that the licences were for the import of new motor vehicle parts and that their request for the endorsement on the licences for the import of army disposal vehicle parts was not acceded to by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner and the other partners of the firm were prosecuted. For the purpose of bringing home the guilt against the accused the Police as well as the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports cited as many as 15 witnesses. 3. When these two matters came up for trial before the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, the petitioner prayed that the procedure prescribed under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code be followed and that the procedure prescribed under section 207A may not be followed because section 208, Criminal Procedure Code gave certain advantages to the accused. In the circumstances of the case in the alternative it was further prayed that even if the procedure prescribed under section 207 A, Criminal Procedure Code was followed the witnesses to the actual commission of the offence with which the accused was charged should be examined in Court. The learned Magistrate after considering the application of the petitioner was of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if no witnesses were examined because the copies of the statements and documents recorded during the course of the investigation have already been furnished to him and that the right of the petitioner accused to cross-examine the witnesses cannot be said to have been taken away beca\1se according to him he cannot proceed with the case when it is triable by a Court of Session. In his view prejudice also will not be caused to the accused if the witnesses were not examined even though there is a private complaint under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act filed by the Deputy Chief Controller. It is in that view of the matter, therefore, that he ordered that both the complaints should be tried together and that the procedure laid down in section 207-A, Criminal Procedure Code should be followed: that the procedure under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be followed. The petitioners application, therefore, was accordingly dismissed. It is against this order of the learned Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate that the petitioner has come here in revision. 4. The only point that arises here for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is legal and proper. 5. The simple point before me is whether it was right for the learned Magistrate to consolidate both the private complaint as well as the complaint filed at the instance the Police and whether after consolidation it was proper for the learned Magistrate to order procedure under section 207 A of the Criminal Procedure Code and not under section 208. 6. Section 207 A, Criminal Procedure Code deals with a procedure to be adopted in the proceedings instituted on a police report. Under sub-section (4) of section 207 A the Magistrate has to proceed to take evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to die actual commission of the offence alleged and if the Magistrate is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of justice to take evidence of anyone 9r more of the witnesses for the prosecution he may take such evidence also. Section 208 deals with the proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report in which the Magistrate shall when the accused appears or is brought before him proceed to hear the complainant, if any, and take in the manner provided in the Code all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused or as may be called for by the Magistrate. The accused is also given liberty to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution and in such a case the prosecution may re-examine them. The accused is also given liberty to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution and in such a case the prosecution may re-examine them. Under section 208 the Magistrate, therefore, has to record evidence, hear the complainant and allow the accused to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution. The accused also under section 208 is given a right to lead defence evidence. The accused has a right to lead evidence for the purpose of showing that no prima fade case was made out against him. On the other hand the accused is not given any right to lead his defence evidence under section 207 A. The accused, however, has a limited right to cross-examine witnesses, if any, examined by the prosecution and only when they are produced by the prosecution. The Magistrate, however, can take evidence of such persons who are witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged. It is, therefore, clear that the accused has more advantages under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code and very little advantage under section 207A thereof. 7. It is contended by Mr. Merchant, the learned advocate for the petitioner, that the learned Magistrate has erred in refusing to follow the procedure under section 208. According to him his order that the procedure under section 207 A should be followed is erroneous. It is also contended by him that even if the learned Magistrate follows the, procedure under section 207A it is necessary for him to examine the persons who are witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged. He gave a list of witnesses who are mentioned in both the private complaint as well as in the charge-sheet. According to Mr. Merchant, witnesses Bhawani, Bawdekar, Bhasin, Batra, clearing agent Shiwadkar and Afzal are the persons who can rightly be said to be the witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Gambhirwala says that the order passed by the learned Magistrate consolidating both the complainants and ordering the procedure under section 207 A, Criminal Procedure Code to be followed is quite legal and proper. We have, therefore, to examine these rival contentions. 8. Mr. Merchant, the learned advocate for the petitioner, relies on two unreported judgments of this Court viz State v. Tiny Moolchand Advani1 and Safi Ahmed Ahmed Abdul Hamid v. The State of Maharashtra2. We have, therefore, to examine these rival contentions. 8. Mr. Merchant, the learned advocate for the petitioner, relies on two unreported judgments of this Court viz State v. Tiny Moolchand Advani1 and Safi Ahmed Ahmed Abdul Hamid v. The State of Maharashtra2. The former is a Division Bench judgment and the latter is a single Judges judgment. Mr. Merchant relies on them for the purpose of showing that some of the witnesses, who are mentioned above, ought to have been examined by the learned Magistrate even if he decided to follow the procedure under section 207 A. Now the Division Bench was dealing with a charge-sheet for the commission of offences under section 366 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and under section 376 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 2 applied to this Court for setting aside the order of committal passed by the learned Magistrate below on the ground that it was wrong for the Magistrate to have not complied with the provisions of section 207A(4), Criminal Procedure Code. It was contended that the only witness who was examined by the Magistrate below was the Investing Officer who had not actually seen the commission of the offences. On the other hand there were at least four persons who had actually seen the offences and yet they were not examined. It was, therefore, contended that the learned Magistrate has not complied with the provisions of section 207 A(4), Criminal Procedure Code. The Division Bench after reliving on Kirpal Singh v. State of U. P.3 observed "it is now no longer open to the Magistrate to refuse to examine the principal witnesses to the actual commission of the offence". Further, the Division Bench was of the view that "the victim of the offence Edwin Keith will be at least one of the principal witnesses to the actual commission of the offence and so she must be examined in Court." The learned Judges also help "since the procedure laid down by section 207 A(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed in this case, the applicant is entitled to make a complaint about it in this Court." 9. In the latter case my Lord the Chief Justice was dealing with a revision application of the five applicants, who were charged under section 436 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. In the latter case my Lord the Chief Justice was dealing with a revision application of the five applicants, who were charged under section 436 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that the accused had thrown lighted bottles of petrol on the cinema screen in consequence of which the screen caught fine. Two eye-witnesses were cited in that case. Relying on the above cited Supreme Court decision my Lord the Chief Justice was of the view that the Magistrate ought to have examined the two eye-witnesses in that case, Accordingly, therefore, he held that the Magistrate had not exercised the discretion judicially. It is in the light of these observations in the judgments of the two above cited cases that Mr. Merchant says that the learned Magistrate, even if he wanted to follow the procedure under section 207 A, Criminal Procedure Code ought to have examined several witnesses, who can rightly be said, according to him, to be the witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. It is, however, difficult Wi me to accept this contention because none of the witnesses cited by Mr. Merchant can be said to be either eye-witnesses to the offence committed by the petitioner or witnesses. to the actual commission of the offence . 10. The allegations against the petitioner and others are that the petitioners firm had already imported some consignment of military dispasal goods on the licence bearing a forged endorsement although they were not allowed under the import licence obtained by them, to do so. The allegation is that not only the petitioner and his firm forged the endorsement but also. imported certain goods which were not permitted to them under the forged licences. Now, it is contended by Mr. Merchant that the accused made false representations to. witness Banerji and cheated him. Witness Bawdekar had examined the goods which were imparted on false licences Bhasin and Batra had opened the letters of credit and were presented to the Bank of Baroda and one other bank. Witnesses Shirwardkar, Ghangale and Afzal were the clearing agents and they were also, according- to Mr. Merchant, witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. It is difficult for me to accept the,e contentions for the obvious reason that they are neither eye-witnesses to forgery nor to the use of the forged documents by the petitioner or his firm. Witnesses Shirwardkar, Ghangale and Afzal were the clearing agents and they were also, according- to Mr. Merchant, witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. It is difficult for me to accept the,e contentions for the obvious reason that they are neither eye-witnesses to forgery nor to the use of the forged documents by the petitioner or his firm. By no stretch of imagination could Banerji or other witnesses be called witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged. There is, therefore, no question of these witnesses being classified as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. The words "actual commission" in section 207A(4) clearly indicate evidence which goes directly to prove the fact in issue. In the case which is to be established by circumstantial evidence it would be difficult to find persons who can be said to be eye-witnesses to the actual commission of the offence. In the instant case it does not, therefore, appear to me that the witnesses as cited by Mr. Merchant can be said to be witnesses who are -witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged against the petitioner or his firm. There is, therefore, no question of their being examined under section 207 A, Criminal Procedure Code. II. Mr. Merchant relies on State of West Bengal v. Tulsidas" for the interpretation of sections 208 and 207A, Criminal Procedure Code. There can be no doubt that there is considerable difference between the provisions of sections 207 A and 208 and there is no doubt that the accused has more advantages under section 208 and less under section 207A. 12. The point, therefore, now is whether the learned Magistrate was right in not only consolidating the two proceedings but also following the procedure under section 207A. Mr. Merchant relied on Gopal v. State5 for the proposition that if there was a private complaint and if there was also for-the same incident a police complaint, the two cannot be consolidated. The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court has taken the view that the proceeding started on a private complaint against the accused in respect of an offence under section 307, Indian Penal Code and also the proceeding started on a police challan filed against one of them under section 307, Indian Penal Code with respect to the same incident cannot be consolidated. According to the learned Judges the order consolidating the two proceedings was wrong. It held that according to the amended Criminal Procedure Code the procedure for inquiry in case triable by the Court of Sessions on police report h.9 been simplified and by tagging the police challan with the complaint the very purpose of expediting trial is frustrated. They further held that the procedure under section 208 and subsequent sections is different and the reason for the difference is that while the police is not interested in one or the other party, the complainant is a person interested and satisfactory evidence is necessary to be recorded by the Court before it comes to the conclusion that the accused should be committed. It was ordered by the Court below there that the trial was to proceed under section 207A as per the amended procedure. It is, therefore, contended by Mr. Merchant that the order of consolidation and the order to proceed under section 207 A, Criminal Procedure Code passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate are erroneous. But in State v. Matu6 the Rajasthan High Court while dealing with two references arising out of a private complaint and a police challan has observed (p. 424) : "There is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for consolidation of an inquiry proceeding on a police report with an inquiry commencing on a private complaint. At the same time, there is no express bar either against consolidation in an appropriate case If the two inquiries are consolidated the Magistrate should proceed under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code because it lays down a longer procedure which is more beneficial to the accused than the one laid down in section 207 A Criminal Procedure Code. The consolidation should, however, be avoided as far as possible, because the very purpose of providing section 207 A is to expedite the inquiry and that purpose should not be allowed to be frustrated." 13. It does appear that there is no express provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for consolidation of a proceeding on a police report with an inquiry commencing on a private complaint. The point, therefore, that arises here for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate can consolidate such two proceedings. It does appear that there is no express provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for consolidation of a proceeding on a police report with an inquiry commencing on a private complaint. The point, therefore, that arises here for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate can consolidate such two proceedings. We are here concerned with a private· complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and a Police charge-sheet filed under sections 471-467, Indian Penal Code and also for an offence punishable under section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The allegations are the same. The incident also is the same. The evidence that is led and that would be led for the purpose of bringing home guilt appear to be same because the same witnesses have been cited in both the proceedings. It would not in my view he improper in such circumstances if the two proceedings are consolidated for the purpose of decreasing the burden as well as the hardship on the petitioner and the other accused. In the ordinary course the accused would actually suffer more hardship if he is tried twice or the same offence. Having two trials in the circumstances in my view would not therefore be advisable. I t would not be necessary in the circumstances of the case. There will not, therefore, be anything wrong if the learned Magistrate consolidates such two proceedings. 14. The point, however, after consolidating the two proceedings is whether the learned Magistrate can still follow the procedure under section 207 A. It would be erroneous in my view for the Magistrate after consolidating the two proceedings to follow the procedure laid down under section 207Aand not under section 208. We have seen that the accused has very little rights to defend himself under section 207 A. He has no right to lead evidence to show that there was no prima facie case against him. He has merely a right to cross-examine witnesses only if the prosecution chooses to examine. On the other hand under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code there are more benefits and advantages available to the accused. The learned Magistrate has to record evidence of the witnesses and the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine them. He has merely a right to cross-examine witnesses only if the prosecution chooses to examine. On the other hand under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code there are more benefits and advantages available to the accused. The learned Magistrate has to record evidence of the witnesses and the accused is given an opportunity to cross-examine them. The accused has also a right to lead defence evidence if he chooses to. If therefore, the proceeding instituted on ~ police report is consolidated with the proceeding instituted on a private complaint, the Magistrate should proceed under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code because it gives more benefits to the accused than those available under section 207 A. It could be in the fitness of the things if he follows the procedure under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Gambhirwala, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, has not been able to invite my attention to any case either of this Court or any other High Court which would be co contrary to the view which I am now taking. 15. Mr. Merchant, the learned advocate for the petitioner, also relied upon Amal Chakraborty v. State7, But that in my view will not help him. In that case the argument was based on the two decisions of the Chakravartti, C. J, and Das Gupta, J. where their Lordships held that the provisions of section 156 of the Code were not applicable to the Calcutta Police and that the Calcutta Police had no right to submit a report under section 173 of the Code. That case, therefore, will be of no use to Mr. Merchant. It appears to me, therefore, that the order passed by the learned Magistrate consolidating the two proceedings is proper. But his order that the procedure under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code should not be followed is erroneous. In my view he should follow the procedure under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code but should also try to expedite its disposal according to the spirit of section 207A. 16. The petition is therefore partly allowed. The learned Magistrate is directed to follow the procedure under section 208, Criminal Procedure Code. 17. Rule is accordingly disposed of. Petition partly allowed.