Judgment C.N.Tiwary, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against an order, dated 3-7-1972 converting the trial into a committal enquiry. 2. First Information Report was lodged at the Jehanabad police station on 22-2-1968 by Ram Wakil Singh (P.W. 6). The police after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet against the 11 petitioners under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. On receipt of the charge-sheet the Subdivisional Magistrate took cognizance on 13-4-1968 and transferred the case to the file of Sri K. N. Jaiswal, Magistrate 1st class for disposal. The order, dated 31-10-1968 shows that copies of relevant police papers specified in Sub-section (4) of Sec.173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the old Code) were supplied to the accused persons. The 26th of November, 1968 was fixed for framing charge against the accused persons. For some reason or other the case was adjourned from one date to another till 26-6-69 when charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the accused persons. Accused persons pleaded not guilty. Prosecution witnesses were summoned. On 24-6-69 the case was transferred to the file of Sri Murli Manohar Prasad Sinha, Magistrate 1st Class for disposal. Basanti Devi (P.W. 1) was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 10-9-69. Arkali Devi (P.W. 2) was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 19-1-70. Dr. K. Rama (P.W. 3) and Sri Ram Upadhya (P.W. 4) were examined, cross-examined and discharged on 22-7-1970. Harnandan Singh (P.W. 5) (wrongly mentioned in the deposition as P.W. 4) was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 21-9-1971. Uttam Kumar Singh (P.W. 5) was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 2-4-1971, Thereafter the case was transferred to the file of Sri S. C. Sinha, Magistrate 1st Class. On a petition filed by the prosecution that the trial should be converted into a committal enquiry on the ground of seriousness of the offence, the learned Magistrate Sri S. C. Sinha passed the impugned order for conversion of the trial into a committal proceeding. The relevant portion of the impugned order runs thus: Perused the evidence of Dr. K. Rama, the then Deputy Superintendent of Jehanabad Subdivisional Hospital (P.W. 3). The relevant portion of the impugned order runs thus: Perused the evidence of Dr. K. Rama, the then Deputy Superintendent of Jehanabad Subdivisional Hospital (P.W. 3). He found the following injuries on the person of the informant Sri Ram Wakil Singh: I. One incised wound 2 1/2" X 1" X 1 1/2" on the web between index finger and thumb of right hand cutting the corresponding first metacorpal bone completely near its lower end making the thumb hanging on palm . II. One bruise 4" X 1" on the right upper chest at above the level of the third rib with acute tenderness of the part and severe pain. III. One bruise 2" X 1 1/2" on the back of left fore-arm at about its middle. IV. One bruise 5" X 1" on the upper part of right side of the buttock. V. One bruise 4" X 1" on the upper part of left side of buttock. The M.O. (P.W. 3) opined that the injury No. 1 was grievous in nature caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon may be by garasa and the remaining injuries were simple caused by hard and blunt object may be by lathi. 5. On going through the evidence of the medical officer (P.W. 3) as discussed in the preceding para it is clear that the injuries are serious in the nature to agree with the views of the learned prosecution lawyer. Accordingly it is ordered that the present trial be converted into a commitment enquiry. 3. Under the old Code offences under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code are triable by any Magistrate and offences under Sections 148, 324 and 326 are triable by court of session or Magistrate of the first class. Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the offences and as he has not said that he cannot impose adequate sentence on the accused persons in case of their conviction, his order converting the trial into a commitment enquiry is bad. In support of his contention Mr. Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the offences and as he has not said that he cannot impose adequate sentence on the accused persons in case of their conviction, his order converting the trial into a commitment enquiry is bad. In support of his contention Mr. Thakur Prasad has relied upon a Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Queen-Empress V/s. Kayemullah Mandal (1897) ILR 24 Cal 429 in which it had been held that if the Magistrate finds that the accused had committed an offence, which in his opinion, could not be adequately punished by him, there would seem to be nothing to prevent his committing the case to the court of Session. This decision was followed in Emperor V/s. Deo Narain Mullick AIR 1928 Pat 551 : 29 Cri LJ 612, which has also been relied upon by Mr. Thakur Prasad. In that case Jwala Prasad, J., observed: The offence in this case is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Therefore the Magistrate could only commit the accused to the Court of Session if he had been of opinoin that the case ought to be tried by that Court, He must give reasons for his entertaining that opinion, for the order of commitment is judicial order. 4. Reliance has also been placed by Mr. Thakur Prasad on a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Emperor V/s. Nanji Samal (1913) 14 Cri LJ 609 (Bom.). The learned Judge observed: In a case of this kind where the trial may either be by the Magistrate himself or by the Court of Session, I think, that reasons for commitment must include not merely reasons for not discharging the accused, but reasons for sending him before the Court of Session. There has, therefore, been a failure to comply with he law. This, no doubt, would amount to no more than an irregularity if the case were one which plainly ought to be committed to the Session. But where, as appears here, the case is not one which ought to have been committed, then to commit without giving reasons is more than an irregularity. It is, it seems to me, an illegality. 5. Mr. But where, as appears here, the case is not one which ought to have been committed, then to commit without giving reasons is more than an irregularity. It is, it seems to me, an illegality. 5. Mr. Ram Nandan Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, has urged that Sec.347 of the old Code gives very wide powers to the Magistrate to commit and Sec.347 cannot be read subject to the provisions of Sec.244 and therefore, the Magistrate could commit the accused to the court of Session, though he was competent to try and could adequately punish the accused. He has relied upon a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Crown Prosecutor V/s. Bhagavathi AIR 1919 Mad 907 : 19 Cri LJ 997. It has been held in that case as follows: The important question is whether Sec.254 does make it imperative on the Magistrate if the offence could be adequately punished by him to try the ease till the end and whether it imperatively forbids him from committing the case to the Sessions. So far as the words of Sec.254 go that section only directs the Magistrate to frame a charge against the accused. What the Magistrate has to do after framing the charge must depend upon the provisions contained in the succeeding sections of the Code dealing with the further proceedings in the trial of warrant cases.... Then we have got Sec.347, which gives very wide power to a Magistrate. In any trial or proceeding before him and at any stage he can, even just before signing judgment, commit a case before him to a Court of Session or the High Court (provided of course, he is empowered to commit cases to that Court) if it appears to him that the case is one which ought to be tried by a Court of Session or the High Court. It does not restrict the grounds on which he should arrive at his opinion to want of jurisdiction in himself or to his inability, in his own opinion to sentence the accused adequately.... Sec.347 does not say that the Magistrate is bound to put his reasons on record for entertaining the opinion that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session or the High Court. 6. Sec.347 does not say that the Magistrate is bound to put his reasons on record for entertaining the opinion that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session or the High Court. 6. With regard to the decision in Queen-Empress V/s. Kayemullah Mandal (1897) ILR 24 Cal 429 referred to above, it was observed that the case gave much wider effect to the language of Sec.254 than that language could properly support. 7. Reviewing the conflicting decisions on this point Yorke, J. of the Allahabad High Court observed in Emperor through Bachan Lal V/s. Subedar Singh AIR 1946 All 365 at p. 371 : 47 Cri LJ 804 at p. 810: In cases triable exclusively by the Court of Session a Magistrate has no option. In cases which are not so exclusively triable he may, as I have suggested earlier, in suitable cases start his proceedings under Chap. 18 or he may and more usually will start his proceedings under Chap. 21. A Magistrate would not be justified in starting proceedings in a simple case of riot or, indeed, most of the offences punishable with a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment other than under Chap. 21. Having done so, he will be bound by the provisions of Sec.254 and it will be his duty to frame a charge and to dispose of the case himself except in the circumstance that he is of opinion as provided by Sec.254 that he will not be competent to inflict an adequate sentence. Sec.347, as it appears to me, does not introduce any new aspect but only keeps open for the Magistrate a loop-hole in those cases in which he comes to a realization of the necessity of commitment at a later stage of the case. In my judgment, neither Sec.207 nor Section 347 should be read as giving a Magistrate an absolute discretion in the matter, subject only to his forming the opinion on some ground or other that the case ought to be tried by the Court of Session (Sec.207) or it is apparent to him that the case is one which ought to be tried by a Court of Session (Sec.347). That is the view which has been generally accepted in this Court and so far as I can see in other Courts apart from the Madras High Court and it appears to me that not only is it justified in law but that it is a sound commonsense view which should not be departed from. I respectfully agree with these views and the views of Jwala Prasad, J. expressed in AIR 1928 Pat 551 : 29 Cri LJ 612. 8. In the instant case, as pointed out above, the learned Magistrate adopted the procedure laid down in Sec.251-A of the old Code, which was inserted by Act XXVI of 1955, The relevant portion of Sec.251-A runs thus: (1) When, in any case instituted on a police report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate at the commencement of the trial, such Magistrate shall satisfy himself that the documents referred to in Sec.173 have been furnished to the accused, and if he finds that the accused has not been furnished with such documents or any of them, he shall cause them to be so furnished. (2) If, upon consideration of all the documents referred to in Sec.173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge him. (3) If, upon such documents being considered, such examination, if any, being made and the prosecution and the accused being given an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try, and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (11) If, in any case under this section in which a charge has been framed, the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal. (12) Where in any case under this section, the Magistrate does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.349 or Sec. 562, he shall, if he finds the accused guilty, pass sentence upon him according to law. 9. (12) Where in any case under this section, the Magistrate does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.349 or Sec. 562, he shall, if he finds the accused guilty, pass sentence upon him according to law. 9. The wordings of Sub-section (3) of Sec.251-A clearly show that the Magistrate shall frame charge against the accused if in his opinion, there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which such Magistrate is competent to try and Which, in his opinion, can be adequately punished by him. When the learned Magistrate framed charges against accused persons, he must be presumed to have been of the view that the accused persons could be adequately punished by him. Therefore, the trial could be converted into commitment enquiry at a later stage, if the Magistrate had found that the accused could not be adequately punished by him. The learned Magistrate has not specifically stated in the impugned order that the accused petitioners cannot be adequately punished by him. Therefore, his order converting the trial into a commitment enquiry is bad in law. 10. In the result, the application is allowed and the order, dated 3-7-1972 converting the trial into commitment enquiry is set aside. The learned Magistrate will proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with the law.