Judgment : This criminal revision case is directed by the complainant in a private complaint case against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mahe, in P.R.C.No. 3 of 1990 on his file. 2. The complaint was taken on file for an offence under Sec.436 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant as the case appeared to be one triable by a court of session, the complainant was directed to produce all his witnesses and the complainant examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and there were two witnesses more cited in the complaint. 3. Process were issued to the three accused and they were secured. It was contended on behalf of the accused that since it appeared to the Magistrate that the offence complained of was triable exclusively by a court of session, as per the Proviso in Sec. 202(2) the Magistrate should have called upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses and examined them on oath, and this having not been done the whole proceedings is illegal. 4. The learned Magistrate seems to have agreed with the contention of the accused that the Magistrate should have called upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses to examine them on oath, but however, on further examination of the evidence he found that a case triable by a Court of Sessions under Sec.436, I.P.C. has not been made out and the accused can be charged only for an offence under Sec.435 read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. and therefore he did not commit the case to Court of Sessions, and instead ordered that the case would be tried under Sec.435 read with 34, I.P.C. and consequently he ordered the case to be converted into a calendar case. Aggrieved by this order the complainant has filed this criminal revision case. 5. It is argued that the Magistrate having had the view that the case was triable by a court of session, in no circumstances later he can fail to commit the case to sessions, stating that, it is not a case triable by a Court of Sessions and order trial by himself. 6. I find absolutely no substance in this contention. It is argued that the Magistrate having had the view that the case was triable by a court of session, in no circumstances later he can fail to commit the case to sessions, stating that, it is not a case triable by a Court of Sessions and order trial by himself. 6. I find absolutely no substance in this contention. On a perusal of the order of the Magistrate it is found that the Magistrate directed the complainant to produce all his witnesses but the complainant examined four of his witnesses out of six witnesses cited in the complaint, and after the accused appeared and on hearing both sides it appeared to the Magistrate that there is no evidence disclosing an offence punishable under Sec.436 read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. triable by a Court of Sessions and the offence alleged is triable under Sec.435 read with 34, I.P.C. which can be tried by himself and accordingly he further ordered converting the case into a calendar case. The Magistrate is absolutely correct. He has considered the evidence of the complaint P.W.1. and the evidence of P.W.2 who is the only witness appeared to have corroborated the evidence of P.W.1., and then he has come to the above conclusion. 7. A reading of Sec. 209, Crl.P.C. would clearly show that when after the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate it appears to the Magistrate that the case is triable exclusively by a Court of Session, he shall then commit the case to the Court of Sessions. In our case after the accused appeared it appeared to the Magistrate that the case is not one triable exclusively by the Court of. Session but it is triable by a Magistrate and therefore he has ordered as aforesaid. Thus I find no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate. 8. Here it may be mentioned that under Sec. 323, Crl.P.C. during the trial of a case, if at any stage it appears to the Magistrate that the case ought to be tried by a Court of Sessions he shall then commit the case to that court. Thus I find no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate. 8. Here it may be mentioned that under Sec. 323, Crl.P.C. during the trial of a case, if at any stage it appears to the Magistrate that the case ought to be tried by a Court of Sessions he shall then commit the case to that court. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate will not preclude him from committing the case to the court of Session if subsequently at any stage of the trial it at pears to him that the case is one which ought to be tried by a Court of Session. 9. In the view of the matter, I hold that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is correct and it cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is dismissed.