Short Note : This revision under section 435/439 read with section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the committal order whereby the applicants have been committed for Sessions trial for the offence u/s 302/149 IPC. Held : There can be no quarrel that in view of the proviso to section 484(2) every enquiry 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 the new Code. The contention of the applicants that the trial Magistrate should have recorded evidence of all the complainant's witnesses, before committing the case under the proviso to section 202, sub-section (2) cannot be accepted. In the present case that stage had already passed and as per section 202 of the old Code, the trial Magistrate had examined the complainant and some of his witnesses before registering the complaint and issuing processes to the applicants. Therefore, that stage having been passed there was no question of re-tracing the steps and again recording the statement of complainant's witnesses as required under the proviso to section 202(2) of the New Code. Proviso to section 484(2) nowhere lays down that whatever proceedings have been taken under the old Code are deemed to be wiped off and whole thing had to be started afresh under the new Code. The proviso only mentions that every enquiry 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 the new Code. In the present case when the new Code came into force, the complaint was already registered and processes issued to the applicants and they have put in their appearance before the trial Magistrate. Therefore, under section 209 of the new Code the trial Magistrate was not required to record any evidence but straightway commit the case for Sessions trial. The committal order is in accordance with the provision of the new Code. The Madras case cited above is clearly distinguishable. In that case the complaint was filed and was pending. No steps were taken and in the meanwhile the new Code came into force but the trial Magistrate straightway committed the accused persons for Sessions trial without recording any evidence. The Madras case cited above is clearly distinguishable. In that case the complaint was filed and was pending. No steps were taken and in the meanwhile the new Code came into force but the trial Magistrate straightway committed the accused persons for Sessions trial without recording any evidence. In that case the complaint was yet to be registered and processes issued to the accused persons when the new Code came into force. As such, when the new Code came into force, the Magistrate should have followed the procedure provided in proviso to section 202(2) by examining all the complainant's witnesses before committing the case for Sessions trial. Having not complied with this mandatory provision, the committal order was quashed. 1976 CrLJ 598 distinguished. Revision dismissed.