Order.- This is a reference, made by the Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kottayam, for quashing the commitment of the accused for trial, ordered by the First-class Magistrate, Thodupuzha, in C.C. 124 of 1957, on the ground, that the Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of section 207-A, Criminal Procedure Code. There were a case and a counter-case, both arising out of the same incident. One of these was filed as P.E. 1 of 1957, and was committed by the Magistrate to the Sessions Court, where it was registered as Sessions Case No. 28 of 1958, and the other, which was registered in the file of the Magistrate’s Court as C.C. 124 of 1957, was not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court; but the learned Magistrate thought that it was a fit case for commitment, under the provisions of section 347, Criminal Procedure Code. In committing the case, however, he did not conform to section 207-A, Criminal Procedure Code, by examining the eye-witnesses, who are 8 in number. Section 347, Criminal Procedure Code, enjoins on the Magistrate where he deems fit to commit the accused, to follow the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII of Criminal Procedure Code. This is the interpretation which has been placed upon the relevant clause in section 347; “He shall commit the accused under the provisions hereinbefore contained.” There is no doubt on the facts stated above, that the learned Magistrate committed a violation of section 207-A, by not examining any of the witnesses. The effect of such a violation has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kunjan Raghavan and others v. State1, and it was held, that the wording of sub-section (4) of section 207-A is mandatory, and the Magistrate has no discretion to dispense with the examination of the eye-witnesses. This view has been taken in two cases decided by the Madhya Bharath and Mysore High Courts. The Division Bench followed an earlier case decided by the Travancore-Cochin High Court in State v. Govindan Thampi Bhaskaran Thampi2. I am bound to follow the decision of the Kerala High Court, cited above. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the order of commitment cannot be sustained. It is hereby quashed and the case is sent back to the First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thodupuzha for disposal in accordance with law. The reference is answered as above. M.C.M. ----- Commitment quashed.