Judgment Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code) for quashing an order, dated the 23rd May, 1974, passed during a commitment inquiry which was pending on the date the new code came into force. 2. The complainant-opposite party no. 1 filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Khunti, and, on the basis thereof, the petitioners were summoned under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was transferred to the Magistrate, Khunti for holding inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'old Code'). 3. Under the old Code an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code was triable by a Court of Sessions only, and, as such, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the commitment inquiry. But, before the inquiry could be concluded, the new code carne into force on the 1st April, 1974. Under the new Code, an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. As such, a petition was filed on behalf of the accused persons that the Munsif Magistrate should drop the commitment inquiry and should proceed to try the case himself. By the impugned order, the learned Munsif Magistrate has rejected the said petition on the ground that the commitment inquiry was pending, on the date the new Code came into force and, in view of Section 484 (2) of the new Code, the said inquiry had to be concluded in accordance with the provisions of the old Code, as if the new Code had not come into force. 4. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 484 of the new Code, the old Code has been repealed. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 484 reads thus: "(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, (a) If, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force. 4. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 484 of the new Code, the old Code has been repealed. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 484 reads thus: "(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, (a) If, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force. There is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the Old Code), as if this Code had not come into force: Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Old Code, which is pending at the commencement of the Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code"; In view of clause (a) of Sub-Section (2).of Section 484, as a rule, any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending on the date the new Code came into force has to be continued, held or made in accordance with the provisions of the old Code, as if the new Code had not come into force. But, there is a proviso to clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 484, which lays down that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code which was pending at the commencement of the new Code "shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code." From a bare reading of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 484, together with the proviso thereof,' it is clear that the 'inquiry' mentioned in clause (a) has to be read as an inquiry other than a commitment inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code. The role of a proviso is well known. The proper function of a proviso is to carve out a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment. Thus, it has to be held that, in view of the aforesaid proviso, the provision of Section 484 (2) (a) has no application to an inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code, and, after coming in force of the new Code, all such inquiries which were pending have to be disposed of in accordance with the proviso of the new Code. 5. 5. Under the old Code, Section 207 prescribed that in a proceeding Instituted on a police report, the procedure laid down in Section 207A was to be followed during the commitment inquiry, and in any other proceeding, including a proceeding instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint the other provisions of Chapter XVIII were to be followed. A bare reference to section 207A in respect of cases instituted on a police report will show that the. Magistrate had to hold a regular inquiry by taking evidence of such persons as might be produced by the prosecution as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence alleged. The accused was at liberty to cross-examine such witnesses examined and, on a consideration of the evidence so adduced, the Magistrate had either to commit the accused for trial before the court of sessions or to discharge him. The other alternative was that the Magistrate might try the case himself or get it tried by some other Magistrate Sections 208 to 210 of the old Code occurring under Chapter XVIII related to the procedure for commitment in proceeding instituted otherwise than on police report. In view of Section 208, the Magistrate had to proceed to hear the complainant and take all such evidence as might be produced in support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused. The accused was at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution, and, on a consideration of the evidence on record, it was open to the Magistrate, under section 209 either to discharge the accused or to try him. If, on the other hand, on the materials on record, the Magistrate was satisfied that there was sufficient ground for committing the accused for trial, then under Section 210, he had to frame the charge declaring with what offence the accused had been charged. Under the provisions of the new Code, virtually there is no scope for any inquiry or for examination of witnesses before the commitment order is passed. Under Section 204 of the new Code, an accused person is summoned by the Magistrate if in the opinion of such Magistrate there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. In cases where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate has to furnish to the accused copies of the police report, the first information report etc. Under Section 204 of the new Code, an accused person is summoned by the Magistrate if in the opinion of such Magistrate there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. In cases where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate has to furnish to the accused copies of the police report, the first information report etc. So far as the proceedings instituted otherwise than on a police report are concerned, in view of Section 208, if it appears to the Magistrate issuing processes under section 204 that the offence was triable exclusively by a Court of Session, he had 'to furnish to the accused copies of the statements recorded under Section 200 or 202. Section 208 of the new Code reads as follows: "208. Where in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under Section 204 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following: (i) the statement recorded under Section 200 or Section 202, of all persons examined by the Magistrate; (ii) the statements and confessions, if any recorded, under section 161 or section 164; (iii) any documents produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely : Provided that, if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document is voluminous he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy' there of, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court". Section 209, which enables the Magistrate to pass an order of commitment, is in these words:- "209. When in a case instituted on a police report or otherwise the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, he shall- (a) commit the case to the Court of Sessions, (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody during, and, until the conclusion of, the trial; (c) send to that Court the record of the case and the documents and articles, if any, which are to be produced in evidence; (d) notify the Public Prosecutor' of the commitment of the case to the Court of Session". Thus, the old procedure of commitment has been simplified under the new Code and the Magistrate has to pass the commitment order on the basis of the papers referred to in sections 207 and 208 of the new code. In view of the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 484 of the new Code, even in which the commitment proceeding under Chapter XVIII of the old Code was pending now the Magistrate has simply to satisfy himself, on the basis of the document referred to in section 207 or 208, as the case may be, as to whether the offence alleged was triable exclusively by a Court of session. Once he is satisfied about the same, he has to commit the accused to the Court of Session. 6. The next question is as to whether the Magistrate has to look to the old Code to find out as to whether an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by a court of Session, or to the new Code under which it is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class, while exercising the power under Section 209. The proviso to clause (a) of Section (2) of Section 484 says that the inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the new Code, which means that the new Code has to be looked into even for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether a particular offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. If a contrary view is to be taken that the Magistrate should ascertain whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Session with reference to the old Code, an anomalous position would arise, because it will have to be taken that even for the purposes of passing the commitment order under Section 209 of the new Code both the Codes are in force which contention has been negatived by me earlier. Moreover, Section 228 (1) of the new Code is relevant in this connection. Moreover, Section 228 (1) of the new Code is relevant in this connection. It reads thus; "228 (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused," In exercise of the powers under this Section, it will be open to the Sessions Judge to transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate if, in his opinion, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. In view of the aforesaid facts, my considered opinion is that a Magistrate while passing an order of commitment under Section 209 of the new Code in commitment inquiries pending on the date of the coming into force of the new Code, has to decide as to whether the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, with reference to the new Code only. 7. In the result, the application is allowed, the impugned order of the learned Munsif Magistrate is quashed and he is directed to proceed with the trial of the case, if he is otherwise competent to try the same. Application allowed.