Order.- The question that arises in this petition filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, by the accused in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1976 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, is whether the order of committal of the accused by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under section 323, Indian Penal Code, read with section 209, Criminal Procedure Code, is without jurisdiction. 2. The Inspector of C.B.I., S.P.E., Hyderabad, filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the alleged offences under sections 120-B/420, 471/460, 420 and 472, Indian Penal Code. The charges were framed after examination of the accused and hearing as required under section 240, Criminal Procedure Code. A-1 was charged under sections 120-B/420, 471/461, 471/ 460, 420 and 472, Indian Penal Code. Charges against A-2 were framed under sections 120-B/420 and 419, Indian Penal Code. The charges framed against A-3 were under sections 120-B/420, 419 and 471/468, Indian Penal Code. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to refer to the charges framed against A-4, as he is not a petitioner in this petition. 3. When the case came on for trial the learned Magistrate having regard to the gravity and nature of the offence, and the circumstances of the case, was of the opinion that the case was one that ought to be tried by a Court of Session and, therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session. Hence, this application by the accused. 4. The principal and the only contention of the learned Counsel for the accused was that the offences with which the accused are charged are only offences triable by a Magistrate, that there are no offences which are exclusively triable by a Court of Session and, therefore, the committal under section 323, Criminal Procedure Code, in the circumstances, is without jurisdiction. 5. 5. Section 323, Criminal Procedure Code, under which the case has been committed by the learned Magistrate, reads as follows: “If, in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him that at any stage of the proceedings before signing judgment that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session, he shall commit it to that Court under the provisions hereinbefore contained.” To invoke the provisions of section 323, Criminal Procedure Code, it should appear to the Magistrate in any inquiry into an offence or a trial before him that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session. The case need not be one exclusively triable by a Court of Session. If the material in the case discloses an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the Magistrate ‘has then no option but to commit the case to the sessions. On the other hand, if the material discloses only an offence which is triable by the Magistrate himself, then he has a discretion either to try it himself or commit. What is essential for the commitment of the case to the Court of Session is merely the opinion of the Magistrate that the case is one which ought to be tired by the Court of Session. If the Magistrate is of the opinion, on a consideration of the material on record, that the case is one that ought to be tried by a Court of Session, then he shall commit the case to that Court. What the section really requires is merely the opinion of the Magistrate and not the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The said opinion may be on the basis of the nature and gravity of the offence, the punishment to be met and such other matters of aggravation. 6. What the section really requires is merely the opinion of the Magistrate and not the satisfaction of the Magistrate. The said opinion may be on the basis of the nature and gravity of the offence, the punishment to be met and such other matters of aggravation. 6. Somasundaram, J., In re, Sant Prakash Sahni1, construing the provisions of section 347, Criminal Procedure Code (old), which corresponds to section 323, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, observed: “The words at any stage of the proceedings in section 347 are words of the widest amplitude and, as I have already observed, the decision in, In the matter of Chinnimarigadu2, lays down as axiomatic that it is competent to a Magistrate to say whether from the gravity of the matter or for any other sufficient reason that the Sessions Court is the proper Tribunal for the disposal of the case.” 7. The alleged offences in this case are, no doubt, triable by the Magistrate. But the learned Magistrate has expressed the opinion that having regard to the gravity of the offence, the punishment to be met and circumstances of the case, the case is one which ought to be tried by a Court of Session. Accordingly, he committed the case. Such a committal undoubtedly cannot be held to be without jurisdiction. 8. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.