JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This revision involves the question of jurisdiction and justification of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jajpur, committing the petitioners to the Court of Session for trial under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. As disclosed from the first information report, the occurrence took place on 20th May, 1975 at about 10 a.m. It is alleged that the accused persons came in a body being armed with deadly weapons and firearms. They injured Kanhei Das and broke down the houses and the walls. When Kanhei was kept inside a room, the accused persons forcibly entered into the house by breaking it open, assaulted the ladies and children, broke open the almirahs, treasuries and boxes and removed important documents, valuables, money, rice, paddy and cereals and also took away cycle, watches and radio from the house. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the officer-in-charge of the Jajpur Police Station for prosecution of the accused persons under sections 147/148/140/380/427/324/323, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate framed charge against the accused persons on 15-2-1977 under sections 147/148/380/324/323/427, I.P.C. On 3-8-1978, a petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor to commit the accused persons to the Court of Session by amending the charge to one under section 395, I.P.C. As on perusal of the materials available, the learned Magistrate had already framed the charge, the prayer of the prosecution was refused. 4. After the evidence of some of the witnesses was recorded, again a petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor on 21-8-1979 to commit the accused persons to the Court of Session for having committed an offence under section 395, I.P.C. On perusal of the evidence of the witnesses already recorded, the learned Magistrate was not satisfied that there was anything in the evidence to alter the charge. On rejection of the petition by order dated 27-9-1979, Criminal Revision No. 476 of 1979 was filed in this Court by the informant. After hearing the accused persons, this Court observed in its order dated 10-3-1981 that the learned Magistrate may exercise his power under section 323, Cr.P.C. after recording the evidence of all the eye-witnesses, if he is satisfied that the accused persons ought to be tried by the Court of Session. 5. After hearing the accused persons, this Court observed in its order dated 10-3-1981 that the learned Magistrate may exercise his power under section 323, Cr.P.C. after recording the evidence of all the eye-witnesses, if he is satisfied that the accused persons ought to be tried by the Court of Session. 5. After recording of the evidence of 34 witnesses, the learned Magistrate passed order that he would examine the evidence of the witnesses on 11-4-1985 to ascertain if there was a prima facie case to send the records to the Court of Session for the accused persons being tried there. After hearing the accused and the prosecution, by order dated 4-5-1985, the learned Magistrate has committed the accused persons to the Court of Session in exercise of the power under section 323, Cr.P.C. 6. It is not in dispute before me that an offence under section 395, I.P.C. is triable only by the Court of Session. Mr. Deepak Misra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the learned Magistrate in the circumstances of the case has not applied his judicial mind as he treated the order of this Court to be a direction to commit the accused persons to the Court of Session. He further submitted that the earlier revision to this Court at the instance of the informant without the State being made a party was incompetent and the prosecution having accepted the order on two occasions before without challenging, the same, there was no scope for consideration to exercise the power under section 323, Cr.P.C. Lastly, Mr. Misra submitted that perusal of the evidence on record also would not disclose an offence under section 395, I.P.C. to have been committed. 7. The last contention of Mr. Misra is not entertainable. Normally, the High Court in a revision application filed against the order of commitment will not enter upon for re-appraisal of the evidence on which the order of commitment is made. 7. The last contention of Mr. Misra is not entertainable. Normally, the High Court in a revision application filed against the order of commitment will not enter upon for re-appraisal of the evidence on which the order of commitment is made. The High Court would be justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction where (i) there is no evidence on which the order of commitment could be made, (ii) there is denial of right to fair trial, (iii) there is failure to comply with the rules of procedure or conditions-precedent, (iv) substantial law which constitutes the offence was ignored, or (v) on mis-conception of evidence of matters of importance grave injustice results and where similar other questions are involved. Therefore, I am not prepared in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction to assess the evidence as it is not the case of no evidence. 8. Section 323, Cr.P.C. involves a question of jurisdiction. It is a power given to the Court for adequately dealing with the offenders. It confers in general terms a wide and comprehensive power on a Magistrate to commit a case to the Court of Session at any stage of the enquiry or trial before signing of the judgment. If the case appears to be one which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the Magistrate has no alternative than to commit the case to the Court of Session. The phrase 'if it appears' contemplates the formulation of a judicial opinion. Thus, the discretion is to be exercised judicially and no hard and fast rule can be enunciated as to in what cases commitment should be made under this section and in what other cases it should not be made. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. The learned Magistrate having come to the conclusion on consideration of the evidence that a prima facie case of an offence under section 395, I.P.C. has been made out, he has no option to retain the file with him as he has no power to try the case which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. 10. The submission of Mr. Misra on the question of this Court entertaining the revision at the instance of the informant is not to be entertained since such objection was not raised in this Court at the time of hearing of the earlier revision application. 10. The submission of Mr. Misra on the question of this Court entertaining the revision at the instance of the informant is not to be entertained since such objection was not raised in this Court at the time of hearing of the earlier revision application. It is not a case of absence of jurisdiction. Whether the exercise of jurisdiction was appropriate in the facts and circumstances of a case would not be entertained at a later stage where the party aggrieved participated in the proceeding taking the chance of his success and has failed. The decision reported in Thakur Ram and others v. The State of Bihar 1966 S.C.D. 676 has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. All the contentions of Mr. Misra having failed, there is no merit in this Criminal Revision which is accordingly dismissed. The records be sent back forthwith to the trying Court. Final Result : Dismissed