JUDGMENT H.L. Capoor, J. - Jugal Kishore has preferred this application in revision against the judgment and order, dated November 15, 1972, of Sri D.L. Agarwala, Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, dismissing the revision of the applicant and upholding the order of the learned Magistrate committing fugal Kishore, applicant, and Madan Lal, co-accused, to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial in respect of the charge under section 420 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code 2. Jugal Kishore is the proprietor of the firm Nathoo Rain Jugal Kishore situate in the town of Alwar in the State of Rajasthan. He and his son Madan Lal carry on Arhat business. Or. the basis of a complaint dated January 6, 1968, filed by Ram Kishan, proprietor of the firm Hira Lal Tara Chand, situate in Mohalla Moregan j in the city of Saharanpur, both the accused, namely, Jugal Kishore and Madan Lal were prosecuted It was alleged in the complaint that on December 12, 1967, the accused persons telephoned to him from Alwar that a truck load of first class Gur he sent to them at Alwar representing that they would be sending an amount of Rs. 15,000/- by a Bank Draft latest by the next day. The parties knew each other from before. The complainant despatched a truck load of Gur worth Rs. 17337- 01 on December 13, 1967, through truck No. USV 4220. The goods were transferred to truck No. RJA 1345 at Loni border because the previous truck was not allowed to enter Rajasthan. The said goods were delivered Ito the aforesaid accused, but, in spite of having received them they did not pay the price as promised on the telephone. The complainant then sent two Hundis through Punjab National Bank, Saharanpur, on December 19, 1967, but they too were received back on January 3, 1968, without being honoured. The allegation of the complainant was that the accused persons had cheated him of the aforesaid amount by misrepresenting to him that the amount would be paid to him, and thus they committed an offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code 3. The accused were summoned and the case remained pending for years, because twice application in revision were filed by the accused persons. The accused were summoned and the case remained pending for years, because twice application in revision were filed by the accused persons. Ultimately, the learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence on record was satisfied that a charge under section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code against both the accused be framed. He, accordingly committed both the accused to the Court of Sessions after having framed a charge under section 420 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has strenuously urged before me that after framing the charge as aforesaid, if the learned Magistrate decided to commit the case to the court of Sessions, it was obligatory on him to have followed the procedure as laid down under sections 208 to 213 Criminal Procedure Code meaning thereby that the learned Magistrate should have given an opportunity to the accused to give orally or in writing a list of witnesses whom he wished to be summoned to give evidence in his trial. This not being done, the contention of the learned counsel is that prejudice would be presumed to have been caused to him. In support of his contention the learned counsel Y laced reliance upon Chhadami Lal Jain v. State of U.P., 1960 AWR 29 SC. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the words 'under the provisions here- in before contained' used in section 347 (1) meant that if the Magistrate decided at some stage of the trial to commit the accused, he had to follow the procedure contained in chapter XVIII. This of course does not mean that the Magistrate must begin over again from the beginning. All that he has to do when he decides that the case ought to be committed is to inform the accused and see that the provisions of chapter XVIII are complied so far as they have not been complied with upto the stage at which he decides that there ought to be a commitment. The procedure under chapter XVIII is laid down in sections 208 to 2 13 Criminal Procedure Code It is necessary that the accused should know when the Magistrate makes up his mind to commit, so that their right under section 208 to produce defence, if any, before commitment is made is safeguarded. The procedure under chapter XVIII is laid down in sections 208 to 2 13 Criminal Procedure Code It is necessary that the accused should know when the Magistrate makes up his mind to commit, so that their right under section 208 to produce defence, if any, before commitment is made is safeguarded. If the accused is denied the opportunity of leading evidence which he has a right to do under section 208, the denial of such right is sufficient to cause prejudice to the accused and section 537 Criminal Procedure Code would have no application to such case. The possibility that the accused may not have produced defence if asked by the Magistrate whether he would do so, is of no consequence. The case cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, applies to the facts of the instant case before me with the result that the learned Magistrate erred in not having followed the provisions as contained in sections 208 to 213 Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Sessions Judge also erred in having maintained the order of the Magistrate. 5. In the result, the application in revision is allowed, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Magistrate to commit the case according to law after following the procedure laid down in sections 208 to 213 Cr.P.C.