JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. 1. Both these revisions are connected and are being disposed of by this order. 2. Criminal Revision No. 2432 of 1984 is directed against order dated 6-10-1982 recorded by Sri S. B. L. Kakkar, learned Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by which he allowed Criminal Revision No. 101 of 1982 and set aside the order of learned Magistrate dated 30-3-82 to proceed with the trial of the case himself as a warrant case under Section 323/324/325 IPC by dropping Section 308 IPC. In pursuance of the order of revisional court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 307 IPC against the revisionists on 7-6-84. This charge along with the order was assailed on behalf of accused-revisionists in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5271 of 1984, under Section 482 CrPC, That application was rejected on 13-11-84. Criminal Revision No. 2.433 of 1984 is directed against that order dated 7-6-84 recorded by Sri K. K. Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur who framed the charge against the accused under Section 307 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 146 of 1983, State v. Rustam and others. 3. One Ashique Hussain lodged a report against accused at Police Station Jwalapur, district Saharanpur on 28-11-80 at 7.45 P.M. about the assault on Mohd. Saddique and Mushtaque with lathis and spear. Accused Baqer was alleged to have used spear while the remaining assailants used lathis. 4. Mohd. Sadique and Mushtaque were medically examined on the same day. X-ray examination of one injured was also done. On 12-12-1980 charge sheet was submitted by investigator Sri Jai Prakash u/Secs. 323, 325 and 308 IPC. Pending the case before the Magistrate, an application was moved by accused on 30-11-1983 by which the investigator was summoned to state that it was on account of mistake that a charge sheet bad been submitted for an offence under Section 308 IPC also. An extract from the case diary was also filed by the investigator on that date in support of his statement. 5. After this statement, learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings under Section 308 IPC vide order dated 30-3-1982. 6. Complainant carried the matter in revision which was allowed as given above. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 7. 5. After this statement, learned Magistrate dropped the proceedings under Section 308 IPC vide order dated 30-3-1982. 6. Complainant carried the matter in revision which was allowed as given above. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 7. On behalf of revisionists, it was argued that order dated 30-3-1982 by learned Magistrate was simply an interlocutory order and no revision against the said order could have lain vide Section 397 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This contention is not acceptable to me for the simple reason that when the Sessions Judge found that the Magistrate recorded an order to usurp the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge, so the order was clearly revisable. 8. The next contention was that it was not open to a private party to prefer a revision when the proceedings were initiated on a police report. This contention is also not weighty. The Sessions Judge could have acted suo moto in calling and examining any record of any proceedings pending before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purposes of satisfying the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed. So the learned Sessions Judge was well within his right to have examined the record and corrected the error apparent on the face of record. The next contention was that the learned Magistrate was justified in examining the investigator and such examination was not illegal. Charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323/324/325 IPC. Section 308 IPC was added subsequently. It was open to the investigator to clearify the same. Learned Magistrate also could have ascertained this fact from the investigator. 9. Even at the stage of enquiry, in the interest of justice, in exercise of his power under Section 311, CrPC, a witness could have been examined by the Magistrate. So while acting under Section 209, CrPC the learned Magistrate could have applied his judicial mind to see as to whether it was a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions or not ? So the Magistrate has not committed any illegality in examining the investigator. 10. In this connection, reliance was placed upon Sobha Nath Chela Baba Itwari Nath v. Acchu Ram, 1984 ACrR 444 = 1984 AWC 694 . In that case, the proceedings were initiated on a complaint by revisionist against one Acchu Ram under Sections 395/397' IPC. So the Magistrate has not committed any illegality in examining the investigator. 10. In this connection, reliance was placed upon Sobha Nath Chela Baba Itwari Nath v. Acchu Ram, 1984 ACrR 444 = 1984 AWC 694 . In that case, the proceedings were initiated on a complaint by revisionist against one Acchu Ram under Sections 395/397' IPC. After recording the statements of complainant and other witnesses, the learned Magistrate found that as the offence under Section 395 IPC could not be committed by a single individual, as was the case of complainant, so the accused was to be discharged. So the case was returned by Munsif Magistrate to the Magistrate concerned for passing appropriate orders. That order was upheld in revision despite the limited scope of enquiry under Section 209 CrPC. It was further argued that in order to ascertain his jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence, learned Magistrate would have examined investigator also in exercise of his power under Section 209, Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Magistrate had power to release the accused on bail also after submission of the charge sheet and before passing the committal order vide State of U. P. v. Lakshmi Brahman, 1983 AWC 378. 11. I have carefully considered these contentions. Section 209 of Code of Criminal procedure reads as below : "209. Learned Magistrate had power to release the accused on bail also after submission of the charge sheet and before passing the committal order vide State of U. P. v. Lakshmi Brahman, 1983 AWC 378. 11. I have carefully considered these contentions. Section 209 of Code of Criminal procedure reads as below : "209. Commitment of case to Court of Sessions when offence is triable exclusively by it :-When in a case instituted an a police report or otherwise, the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions he shall :- (a) Commit, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 or section 208, as the case may be, the case to the Court of Session, and subject to the provisions of this Code relating to bail, remand the accused to custody until such commitment has been made Uttar Pradesh :-for clauses (a) and (b), the following clauses shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted, namely :- " (a) as soon as may be after complying with the provisions of Section 207, commit the case to the Court of Session ; (b) subject to the provisions of this Code relating to -bail, remand the accused to custody until committment of the case under clause (a) and thereafter during and until the conclusion of trial" :-U. P. Act No. 16 of 1976, S. 6". 12. In a criminal proceeding, there are three stages : viz; (i) investigation; (ii) enquiry and (iii) trial. In these revisions, we are not concerned with the proceedings for investigation conducted by the police under Chapter XII of Code of Criminal Procedure. As regards the enquiry and trial, which are the stages of proceedings before the criminal courts, Chapter XVIII of the Old Code of Criminal Procedure, which related to the committal proceedings, has been done away with and new provisions have been made in the New Code of Criminal Procedure which has practically abolished the committal proceedings in cases initiated on the police report. Cases initiated on a complaint relating to the offences exclusively triable by Sessions Judge may be enquired into under Sections 200 and 201 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Cases initiated on a complaint relating to the offences exclusively triable by Sessions Judge may be enquired into under Sections 200 and 201 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In cases initiated on police reports, copies of relevant documents are to be supplied to the accused and as soon as the accused appeared or was brought before the Magistrate and it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, he has to commit the case after complying with the provisions of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If it is not a case initiated on a police report, he may observe the rule incorporated in Section 208 of Code of Criminal Procedure in complaint case etc. No further delay is to be done as is obvious from the amendment aforesaid introduced in U. P. The discretion of Magistrate is limited to the perusal of record. His judicial discretion is circumscribed by limitation and restriction just; like a peep through a pin-hole. The scope of the exericse of that discretion was pointed out by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 514 in the following words : - "In our view, the narrow inspection hole through which the committing Magistrate has to look at the case, limits him merely to ascertain whether the case, as disclosed by the police report, appears to the Magistrate to show an offence triable solely by the Court of Sessions.........If, by error, a wrong section of the Penal Code is quoted, he may look into that aspect." 13. A similar question came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in Dr. D. Samant v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 CrLJ 1819 . It was observed : "The employment of the word 'appears' is pregnant with all these inevitable inferences, which, in turn negative a deeper probe involving the process of appreciation of finer shades. A similar question came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in Dr. D. Samant v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 CrLJ 1819 . It was observed : "The employment of the word 'appears' is pregnant with all these inevitable inferences, which, in turn negative a deeper probe involving the process of appreciation of finer shades. In effect, therefore, on a plain reading of the material on record, which impliedly excludes appreciation of finer shades involving of deeper probe as at the full dressed trial, if it appears to the judicial mind of the Magistrate that there exists an offence triable exclusively by a Sessions Court, or on such plain reading such an offence is prima facie or on the face of the record is disclosed, then he has no option but to commit the case to the Court of Sessions." I respectfully agree with these observations. 14. The charge sheet submitted by the police was under Sections 323/324/ 325/308 IPC. Column no. 5 of the charge sheet slows that after the investigation, the case was found relating to offence under Section 323/324/308 IPC. So addition of Section 308 IPC, which offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, was not merely an omission by investigator as he tried in vain to explain in his statement recorded by magistrate on the application submitted by accused. It appears that the investigator adopted a shifting stand. Learned Sessions Judge found that a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC was made out against the revisionists ana so he charged them accordingly. Under such circumstances, on the evidence on record, no interference by this Court is needed in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is not for the investigator to determine nature of the offence and over-ride the discretion of the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge. In the result, the revisions fail and are dismissed as devoid of force. Both the impugned orders are upheld. 15. Since these proceedings are pending for so many years, let the trial be expedited now. 16. Send the record to the Sessions Court forthwith. Interim orders dated 25-1-1985 and 19-2-1985 are vacated herewith. Revisions dismissed.