Short Note : 1. In the present case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses under section 200 Cr.P.C. and after perusing the evidence and material on record, the learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions for trial under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Session Judge, after hearing arguments, discharged the accused persons on the basis that the evidence given by the prosecution was improbable and inconsistent and as such discharged the accused persons. Against that the present petition was filed. 2. The question before this Court is whether this order under section 227 Cr.P.C. is correct or not. Certainly, the Sessions Judge has powers under section 227 Cr.P.C. after consideration of the record of the case and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution to discharge the accused. But when all the evidence to be recorded is not before him and if the evidence shows the prima-facie case against the accused, then this Court is of the view that the Sessions Judge should not have resorted to section 227 Cr.P.C. and discharged the accused persons. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct and the order passed by him will have to be set aside. State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh, 1977 CAR 267 and State of U.P. vs. Raja Babu and Another, 1978 Cr. L.J. NOC 148, relied on. Revision allowed, case remanded to Sessions Court.