JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - This Criminal Revision is directed against on order of the learned Sessions Judge of Balasore setting aside on order of Shri G.J. Das, Magistrate, first class, Balasore refusing to commit the Petitioner to the Court of Session and discharging him u/s 207-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898. 2. The Petitioner along with 14 other persons were charge-sheeted by the police for having committed on offence u/s 396, Indian Penal Code. After committal enquiry, the learned Magistrate discharged the Petitioner and one Ahmed Saha on the finding that there was no prima facie evidence against them for commitment and committed the remaining 13 accused persons to the Court of Sessions for undergoing trial u/s 396, Indian Penal Code. On on application filed by the prosecution u/s 437, Code of Criminal Procedure against the Petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of discharge. The operative portion of the order is in the following terms: Hence it is ordered that the revision application is allowed on contest and u/s 437, Code of Criminal Procedure it is ordered that the opp. party is hereby committed for trial to the Court of Sessions and a non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against him, the returnable date of which be mentioned in the Sessions record itself which IS in this Court. The extract of this order (last portion) be reproduced in the Sessions record concerned. 3. Mr. D. Sahu, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner challenged the correctness of the above order and contended that the learned Sessions Judge exceeded his powers in committing the Petitioner to the Court of Session straightway. According to him, the commitment must be made by the discharging Magistrate and not by the Sessions Judge himself. 4. The offence u/s 396, Indian Penal Code being exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the committing Magistrate was required to commit the Petitioner to Sessions, if there was a prima facie case on which the Petitioner could be put on trial. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge on a review of the evidence recorded at the committal enquiry came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence for commitment of the Petitioner. After going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, I cannot say that he was not justified in his conclusion. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge on a review of the evidence recorded at the committal enquiry came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence for commitment of the Petitioner. After going through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, I cannot say that he was not justified in his conclusion. I see no cogent ground to interfere with the said judgment. 5. It was urged by Mr. Sahu with some amount of vehemence that under the provisions of Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure the Sessions Judge can only direct the Magistrate to commit the accused, but he cannot himself commit. Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure provides that on finding that on accused who is exclusively triable by a Court of Session has been improperly discharged by a Court of first instance, the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate may cause him to be arrested and instead of ordering a fresh enquiry, order him to be committed for trial upon the matter of which he has been wrongly discharged. Thus, the section empowers the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate to do either of two things, namely to strait away order the committal of the accused or direct the Magistrate to enquire into the matter afresh. The words "order him to be committed" do not mean more than "pass on order for his committal" and the intervention of the Magistrate for making the commitment is not necessary. There is nothing in the section to indicate that when a Sessions Judge or District Magistrate directs a discharged person to be committed for trial, the commitment must be made by the discharging Magistrate. This view is supported by the decisions reported in Queen Empress v. Krishnabhat AIR 10 Bom 319 Karuppiah Ambalam Vs. Andiappan Servai, and P. Venkateswarlu v. B. Narasamma AIR 1957 A.P. 972 . In support of his contention Mr. Sahu cited a decision reported in The Queen v. Lekhraj 1870 N.W.P. High Court Report Vol IT. 132. In that case a Magistrate who had discharged a prisoner was subsequently directed by the Sessions Judge to commit him for trial, but the commitment was eventually made by another Magistrate. It was contended before their Lordships that such commitment was illegal. Sahu cited a decision reported in The Queen v. Lekhraj 1870 N.W.P. High Court Report Vol IT. 132. In that case a Magistrate who had discharged a prisoner was subsequently directed by the Sessions Judge to commit him for trial, but the commitment was eventually made by another Magistrate. It was contended before their Lordships that such commitment was illegal. It was held that although ordinarily the order of the Sessions Judge would be directed to the Magistrate who had discharged the accused person, yet there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent such Sessions Judge from directing a committal by any Magistrate who is authorised to make commitments. This decision does not support the view that under the provisions of Section 437, Code of Criminal Procedure, there can be no commitment of on accused without the intervention of the discharging Magistrate. Mr. Sahu also cited a letter published in Sutherland Weekly Reporter, Volume IV (Criminal Letters; Sutherland Weekly Reporter, Vol IV (Criminal Letters p. 4 which runs as follows: Extract (para 2) of Letter No. 916, from the Registrar of the High Court, etc. dated Calcutta, the 8th September, 1865. 2. The course followed by you in the case of Deda Aheer (Case No. 2 of Statement No. 4) was altogether irregular. The terms used in the law, "direct his commitment" (Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), clearly indicate that a Sessions Judge in such a case should order the commitment to be made by a Magistrate. As, however, the prisoner does not appear to have been prejudiced by this error, the Court will not interfere with your order, unless it shall appear on the prisoner's appeal that it is necessary to do so. I fail to understand how this letter supports the contention of Mr. Sahu. 6. It was next contended by Mr. Sahu that unless the commitment is made through the intervention of the Magistrate, the procedure prescribed under Chapter XXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be followed and the provisions of Section 211, 212 and 213 occurring in that Chapter would become nugatory. Such a contention was raised before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Akshoy Kumar Roy Vs. Lal Mohan Mazumder. Such a contention was raised before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Akshoy Kumar Roy Vs. Lal Mohan Mazumder. Their Lordships repelled the contention and laid down as follows: We should however point out that Sections 211, 212 and 213 of the Code are there in the Code to be followed by the Magistrate when the commitment is under his orders but when a superior Court, empowered to direct commitment applies his mind to the materials on record and directs the Magistrate to make the commitment u/s 437 of the Code there is no longer any question of following the subsequent stages of the procedure which has been laid down for the Magistrate when he is himself to decide whether to commit or not. I am in respectful agreement with this view. 7. It follows from the foregoing discussions that the contention raised by Mr. Sahu is devoid of any substance. There is no merit in this Criminal Revision and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed