Order.- This revision challenges the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to commit a case which is tried by him under section 214-A, Criminal Procedure Code, without recording the evidence by adopting the procedure prescribed for committal under section 207-A, Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Sarma’s contention is that, in a case which is initially tried as a warrant case under section 251-A on a Police Report, if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that it is a case to be tried by the Sessions Court, he should commit it under section 347, Criminal Procedure Code, only by adopting the procedure under section 251-A by recording the evidence of all witnesses. Section 347, Criminal Procedure Code, is in the following terms: Section 347 (1): “If in any inquiry before a Magistrate, or in any trial before a Magistrate, before signing judgment, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session or High Court, and if he is empowered to commit for trial, he shall commit the case under the provisions hereinbefore contained. (2) If such Magistrate is not empowered to commit for trial, he shall proceed under section 346.” A plain reading of the above section shows that a Magistrate who is empowered to commit a case under the provisions of Chapter XVIII, can, in an inquiry or in a trial at any stage of the proceedings upto the signing of the judgment, commit the case if it appears to him that it is one which ought to be tried by a Court of Session or by High Court. The Legislature has further prescribed that this committal should be done under the provisions “hereinbefore contained.” The only provisions for committal of a case which comes within the ambit of the words “hereinbefore contained” are those prescribed under sections 207 to 220 of Chapter XVIII. The contention of Mr. Sarma that the procedure prescribed under section 347 also would take in section 251-A is, in my view, without substance, because that is contained in the Chapter relating to trial of warrant cases. The contention of Mr. Sarma that the procedure prescribed under section 347 also would take in section 251-A is, in my view, without substance, because that is contained in the Chapter relating to trial of warrant cases. It is idle to say that he must complete the trial by recording the evidence of all the witnesses and that only then he must commit the case, because, it is only if, during the trial, the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the case is one which ought to be tried by the Court of Session or High Court, that he should commit the case. If the intention of the Legislature was that he must complete the trial by recording the evidence of all the witnesses before committing the case, it could have said so in clear and unambiguous terms. When, on the other hand, the Legislature specifically-and I say so even at the risk of repetition-used the words “commit the accused under the provisions hereinbefore contained,” it only refers to the provisions relating to committal, and the provisions relating to committal are no other provisions than those contained in Chapter XVIII. Section 251-A has no place in that Chapter nor does it deal with the committal on any construction. The amendment of section 207-A and section 208 has been effected by the Legislature to expedite the trial of Sessions cases on police reports. But, in so far as cases on private complaints are concerned, the amendment to section 208 clearly postulates all such evidence as may be adduced in support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused as may be called by the Magistrate. There is no provisions for the accused to examine his witnesses during the committal proceedings under section 207-A. So that what section 208 means in relation to private complaint is that, all witnesses who are necessary for the prosecution case should be examined and the accused also should be given an opportunity to examine his witnesses. Apart from this there is no warrant for contention that in a case filed on a Police Report the Magistrate has to examine all the witnesses who have to be examined in the Sessions Court, excepting those who have witnessed the actual commission of the offence. The Magistrate has been given a discretion to insist upon examination of all such witnesses even though they may not have been produced. The Magistrate has been given a discretion to insist upon examination of all such witnesses even though they may not have been produced. I am, therefore, of opinion that under section 347, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate can commit a case such as the one before me without having the necessity of recording the evidence of all the witnesses, who are going to be examined in the Sessions Court as if it is a trial of a warrant case by the application of section 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code. This revision is accordingly dismissed. A.B.K. ----- Revision dismissed.