Short Note : The facts of the case in short, are that on 1-9-1978 on the basis of a report made to police Station, Jhansi Road, Gwalior, a case was registered under section 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Tilluram and others. It is entered as Crime No. 222 of 1978. The Police, Jhansi Road arrested Tilluram on 5-9-1978 and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Gwalior, on 7-9-1978. Under the orders dated 8-9-1978 of the third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, the accused was released on bail and for filing the challan, date fixed was 23-9-1978. As the investigation was in progress, the challan could not be filed on 23-9-1978 as well as on 7-10-1978. On 7-10-1978, after seeing the case diary, the Court came to the conclusion that still investigation is in progress and, therefore, for filing the challan, the date fixed was 8-11-1978. On 8-11-1978. Town Inspector, Police, Jhansi Road, filed an application that the investigation is not still complete and that it will be completed very soon and, therefore, one more chance should be given to them. The learned magistrate disallowed the application and discharged of the accused and also ordered that the bail bonds be sent to record. Against that, this revision is directed. Held: The only grievance made before me is that as the offence registered was under section 307 IPC, therefore, the Court had no power to discharge the accused, but it should nave committed it to the Sessions Court. There was sufficient evidence against the accused as far as the offence is concerned and, therefore, this order is bad in law. First, he has referred to me to section 167 Cr.P.C. This section deals with the procedure when the investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours. In that section for a summons case, the period fixed for coming to a conclusion that the investigation should not continue is six months and when period of six, months is prescribed for a summons case, then, the learned counsel submitted before me that at least in a warrant case, the Court should have waited for six months. In fact, he submitted that there is no limitation as far as the warrant case is concerned. In fact, he submitted that there is no limitation as far as the warrant case is concerned. He has referred to the above section just to show what should be in the mind of the legislature in framing section 167 Cr.P.C. He also referred to me that if challan is not put up within sixty days, then at the most the accused will be entitled for a bail irrespective of the nature of the offence committed, but under no circumstances in a warrant case, the Court has a right to discharge the accused, much less when there was evidence against the accused regarding the crime. He has then referred to me to section 173 Cr. P. C. and has said that the Police has to file a report after the completion of the investigation and there should not be unnecessary delay. In this case, the Court has not come to a conclusion that there is unnecessary delay. Therefore, also, the order passed by the trial Court is bad in law. Even section 173 Cr.P.C. gives no power to the Court to discharge the accused. These submissions of the learned counsel are supported by Shri B.P. Singhal, Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State. So also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Tillu could not say anything against the position of law. The learned counsel, the Additional Government Advocate submitted before me that the challan will be filed before 30th January, 1979. Therefore, that much time may be granted to the State to put up the challan. In a case which is a warrant case, the magistrate has no power to discharge the accused, but after seeing the case diary, if there is evidence, he has no choice, but to commit the case to the Sessions Court, as such the order of discharge is bad in law and it cannot be sustained. Revision allowed.