Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.

This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code) for quashing an order, dated the 23rd May, 1974, passed during a commitment inquiry which was pending on the date the new code came into force.

2. The complainant-opposite party no. 1 filed a petition of complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Khunti, and, on the basis thereof, the petitioners were summoned under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was transferred to the Magistrate, Khunti for holding inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'old Code').

3. Under the old Code an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code was triable by a Court of Sessions only, and, as such, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the commitment inquiry. But, before the inquiry could be concluded, the new code carne into force on the 1st April, 1974. Under the new Code, an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is triable by a Magistrate of the First Class. As such, a petition was filed on behalf of the accused persons that the Munsif Magistrate should drop the commitment inquiry and should proceed to try the case himself. By the impugned order, the learned Munsif Magistrate has rejected the said petition on the ground that the commitment inquiry was pending, on the date the new Code came into force and, in view of Section 484 (2) of the new Code, the said inquiry had to be concluded in accordance with the provisions of the old Code, as if the new Code had not come into force.

4. By virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 484 of the new Code, the old Code has been repealed. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 484 reads thus:

"(2) Notwithstanding such repeal,

(a) If, immediately before the date on which this Code comes into force.

There is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending, then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), as in force immediately before such commencement (hereinafter referred to as the Old Code), as if this Code had not come into force:

Provided that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Old Code, which is pending at the commencement of the Code, shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code";

In view of clause (a) of Sub-Section (2).of Section 484, as a rule, any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending on the date the new Code came into force has to be continued, held or made in accordance with the provisions of the old Code, as if the new Code had not come into force. But, there is a proviso to clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 484, which lays down that every inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code which was pending at the commencement of the new Code "shall be dealt with and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Code." From a bare reading of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 484, together with the proviso thereof,' it is clear that the 'inquiry' mentioned in clause (a) has to be read as an inquiry other than a commitment inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code. The role of a proviso is well known. The proper function of a proviso is to carve out a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment. Thus, it has to be held that, in view of the aforesaid proviso, the provision of Section 484 (2) (a) has no application to an inquiry under Chapter XVIII of the old Code, and, after coming in force of the new Code, all such inquiries which were pending have to be disposed of in accordance with the proviso of the new Code.

5. Under the old Code, Section 207 prescribed that in a proceeding Instituted on a police report, the procedure laid down in Section 207A was to be