Judgment The Special Magistrate for District after framing charges under sections 380 and 457, Indian Penal Code, has committed the accused to the Sessions Court, Karimnagar, even though the said offences were triable by the said Magistrates under schedule II read with section 28, Cr. P. C. and could be adequately punished by him. The Sessions Judge has therefore referred the matter to this Court for quashing the commitment on the ground that the offences are not exclusively triable by a Sessions Judge and that the District Magistrate himself could try and adequately punish the accused. ‘ The learned District Magistrate seems to be of the view that the investment of powers under section 30, Criminal Procedure Code, has in fact curtailed some of the powers which are otherwise conferred on Magistrates under sections 28 and 29, Criminal Procedure Code. There is no doubt the powers conferred under sections 28 and 29, Criminal Procedure Code, are subject to the other provisions of the Code including section 30, Criminal Procedure Code. But having regard to the tenor, purport and language of section 30, it cannot be inferred that powers conferred under section 28, Criminal Procedure Code, have been curtailed thereby. As a matter of fact the section deals with investment of further powers on Magistrates who possess requisite qualifications enumerated in the section and not with divestment of any already enjoyed by them. It must be borne in mind that section 30 is not a substitute for section 28. It does not supplant its provisions, rather it supplements them for otherwise the Magistrate especially empowered would be in a less favoured position and would have no jurisdiction to try cases which they were competent to try but for the fresh investiture of powers. Certainly this is not the purpose of the amendment. The object of the provision is obviously to release congestion of work in the Court of Sessions and to avoid delay of commitment in less important cases. A perusal of schedule II will reveal that offences under sections 218, 308 (1), 312 (1), Indian Penal Code, punishable with a sentence of 3 years imprisonment only are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Similarly, there are many offences such as sections 201, 214, 219 to 221, 225, 231, etc., which are punishable with a sentence of 7 years imprisonment but are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Similarly, there are many offences such as sections 201, 214, 219 to 221, 225, 231, etc., which are punishable with a sentence of 7 years imprisonment but are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Obviously, therefore, the object of section 30 is to empower certain qualified and selected Magistrates to try these offences so that the objects mentioned above may be achieved. On a consideration of the provisions of the Code, I am of the view that section 30 is intended to invest the Magistrates with further powers and not to divest them of powers which they already enjoy by virtue of their office as District Magistrate or Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class. The learned District Magistrate was not, therefore, justified in committing the case even though there were no grounds at all to feel that having regard to the circumstances of the case, he could not mete out adequate punishment to the accused. I, therefore, accept the reference, quash the order of commitment and remand the case to the District Magistrate to dispose of it in accordance with law. A.B.K. ----- Order of commitment quashed.