Honble SHARMA, J.–The main and clinching issue springing for determination is whether it was open to the committal Magistrate to launch on a process of meticulous examination of the evidence adduced by the complainant under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., if the case is triable by a court of session ? (2). This issue arises in the following circumstances- (i) An FIR was instituted by the complainant petitioner (for short the complainant) with the Police Station Ramgarh Distt. Alwar against the accused non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 along with Fateh Singh and Mangtu Ram (Fateh Singh and Mangtu Ram died during pendency of the proceedings) for offences under sections 447, 147, 149 and 436 IPC. After usual investigation the police laid final report. The complainant submitted protest petition and examined himself and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Alwar vide its order dated October 26, 1991 dismissed the petition and accepted the final report on the ground that witnesses named in the FIR were not produced by the complainant. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that the complainant in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. did not name those witnesses who were named in the FIR. Therefore the introduction of witnesses in the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is after thought. It was further observed in the order that accused Fateh Singh had already instituted FIR No. 148/89 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 436, 323, 324 and 307 IPC against the complainant and the witnesses who were examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Evidently, these witnesses gave false statements in order to save themselves from the cross case. Therefore cognizance could not have been taken against the accused persons. (ii) Complainant assailed the order of the Magistrate by filing revision. Learned court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Alwar vide its order dated January 21, 1998 dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Alwar. (iii) Powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been invoked by the complainant seeking quashing of the orders of ACJM No. 2 Alwar and Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Alwar. (3). Mr. (iii) Powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. have been invoked by the complainant seeking quashing of the orders of ACJM No. 2 Alwar and Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Alwar. (3). Mr. S.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently canvassed that offence under Section 436 IPC is exclusively triable by court of Sessions and it was obligatory for the ACJM to send the case for trial to the court of sessions. The evidence was not required to be meticulously examined. Reliance was placed on AIR 1986 SC 1780 (1) and 1992 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 116 (2). (4). On the other hand Mr. M.L. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. S.S. Sunda learned counsel for the accused supported the impugned orders and placed reliance on 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 640 (3) and 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 43 (4). (5). I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully perused the impugned orders. (6). In the case on hand after perusing the order of learned ACJM, 1 find that the learned Magistrate acted as if he were a trial Magistrate and for his prima facie satisfaction he has gone into merits and launched on a process of meticulous examination of the evidence adduced by the complainant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also launched on a similar process. (7). This court in Nuna Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (5) had occasion to deal in similar situation. After discussing various judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court, it was indicated thus - (Para 20) ``20. In this behalf,suffice is to lend support from the decision in Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan, (1980 Supp. SCC 449). At the stage of Sections 203 and 204, Cr.P.C. in a case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, all that the Magistrate has to do is to see whether on a cursory perusal of the complaint and the evidence recorded during the preliminary inquiry under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. there is prima facie evidence in support of the allegations made against the accused; and whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At this stage, the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial Magistrate/Judge. At this stage, the Magistrate is not to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial Magistrate/Judge. Even, the Magistrate is debarred from scrutinising the evidence because the standard to be adopted by him in doing so is not the same as the one which is to be kept in view at the stage of framing charges, The stage of framing charges in a case exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions arises within the competence of the Court of Sessions and not the Magistrate before whom the complaint or police report is filed. That apart, as held in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977(4) SCC p. 39), even at the stage of framing charges the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the complainant produces or proposes to adduce at the trial, is not to be meticulously judged. Moreover, section 209 Cr.P.C. itself dispenses with the inquiry preliminary to commitment in cases triable exclusively by a court of Sessions, irrespective of whether such a case is instituted on a criminal complaint or a police report. In my considered view, in such cases the preliminary inquiry by the Magistrate is restricted to find out whether or not the evidence collected in the preliminary inquiry discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The Magistrate before whom any complaint or police report is filed, lacks inherent jurisdiction to launch on a process of satisfying himself that a prima facie case has been made out on the merits. Thus if the Magistrate is allowed to go into the merits even for a prima facie satisfaction, it would be an act to frustrate the Parliaments purposes in remoulding section 207A (old Code) into its present non-discretionary shape. (Thus, by change in the scheme under the new Code, the scope of preliminary inquiry by the Magistrate before whom the police report or complaint is filed, has been made subject to narrow inspection through which he (Committing Magistrate) has only to look at the case merely to ascertain whether the case, as disclosed by the police report or the complaint appears to him to show an offence triable solely by the Court of Sessions. 1 lend the view from the decision in Sanjay Gandhi v Union of India ( 1978(2) SCC 39 ). 1 lend the view from the decision in Sanjay Gandhi v Union of India ( 1978(2) SCC 39 ). In this view of the matter, it is not open to the subordinate Magistrate before whom the complaint or police report is filed to launch on a process of satisfying that a prima facie case has been made out on the merits, if the case is triable by the Court of Sessions. (8). Gayatri vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) was the case where this Court, while dealing in the petition for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. held that Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance even in a case triable by the court of Sessions as the cognizance is always against the offence and never against the offender. (9). Roshan Lal vs. P. Hem Chandra (supra) was a case where police submitted the final report. Thereafter a complaint was filed and statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The Magistrate was not satisfied and again directed police to make further investigation. The said order was assailed. This court held that on his subjective satisfaction the Magistrate will take cognizance. It was a case under Sections 341, 342, 349, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (10). The cases Gayatri vs. State of Raj. (supra) and Roshan Lal vs. P. Hem Chandra (supra) are distinguishable and are not applicable to the case on hand. In a case triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate was not expected to weigh the evidence meticulously as if he were the trial Magistrate. The preliminary inquiry by the Magistrate in Sessions triable cases, is restricted to find out whether or not the evidence collected in the said inquiry discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused to commit him for trial. The Magistrate lacks inherent jurisdiction to launch on a process of satisfying himself that a prima facie case is made out on merits. (11). Learned ACJM and Additional Sessions Judge in my considered view committed illegality in launching on a process of meticulous examination of evidence. (12). Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders stand set aside and the case is remitted back to the learned ACJM for passing a fresh order in view of observations indicated hereinabove. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on May 12,1998.