JUDGMENT Chandra Prakash, J. - This case has come to us on a reference made by a learned single judge. The controversy which has arisen is as to the procedure which is to be followed in the enquiry against the accused and whether section 207-A or section 208, Cr. P. would be applicable. 2. The short facts of the case are that a report about the commission of a dacoity was lodged in which four per- sons were nominated. It -was further I stated that a number of other persons' had also participated in the commission of the dacoity who were not identified but the victims of the dacoity would be in a position to identify them in case they were apprehended. During the course of investigation by the police two persons appear to have been arrested as suspects and following some identification proceedings the police submitted a charge-sheet only against two persons who had not been named in the first information report. In other words, there was no charge-sheet against the four persons named in the report. During the pendency of the proceedings against the two persons referred to above the witnesses examined by the police nominated as participants of crime those four persons also who had been named in the first information report. In these circumstances an application was moved on behalf of the complainant praying that in view of the evidence given by the witnesses an order summoning the six persons mentioned above be also passed. The Magistrate acceded to this request and passed the order summoning those persons. When these six persons, who are now the applicants before us, appeared, it was contended on their behalf that the procedure which should be followed in the enquiry against them should be the one laid down under section 208, Cr.P.C. This contention was repelled by the Magistrate and his order was upheld by the court of sessions. Thereafter the revision came up for hearing before the learned Single judge who referred the case to a larger bench. 3. It appears to us that the matter is concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court which does not seem to have been cited before the learned single Judge, otherwise the reference would not have been necessary at all. We may refer to Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1167 . 3. It appears to us that the matter is concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court which does not seem to have been cited before the learned single Judge, otherwise the reference would not have been necessary at all. We may refer to Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 1167 . In that case a similar point arose. The contention of the appellant therein was that no proceedings had been instituted against him on a police report within the meaning of section 207-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure because his name was not included in the charge-sheet, that although cognizance might have been taken of an offence under section 190 (1) (b), no proceeding as such was instituted against him at that stage; the proceeding was instituted when a non-bailable warrant was issued against him and this proceeding was instituted not on the basis of a police report but on the basis of evidence taken before the Magistrate. On that basis it was con- tended that it was a proceeding falling within the purview of section 207 (b) of the Code. That contention was repelled and after referring to the various clauses of section 190, Criminal Procedure Code it was held that the police report mentioned in section 207 (a), Criminal Procedure Code referred back to section 190 (1) (b) and once cognizance was taken under section 190 (1) (b), a proceeding was instituted within section 207 (a), Criminal Procedure Code Thus, it follows that even though the above mentioned six applicants may have not been included in the charge- sheet, a case was instituted on a police report within the meaning of section 207-A which may be read together with section 190 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the procedure provided by section 207-A of the Code should be followed in the instant case. 4. We, therefore, agree with the view of law expressed by the court below. 5. In the result this revision is dismissed. The stay order dated October 27, 1970 is vacated.