( 1 ) THE petitioner who is accused No. 1 was along with accused No. 2 charge-sheeted for offences under sections 408 and 477a of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Lunawada. There were various items in respect of which accused No. 1 was alleged to have committed breach of trust and falsification of accounts. The offences being triable as warrant cases the learned Magistrate adopted the procedure set out in Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate after going through the procedure prescribed by sub-sections (1) (2) and (3) of section 251a framed charges against accused No. 1 for offences under sections 408 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code on 21st July 1960. The hearing of the case was thereafter adjourned from time to time on one ground or the other. On 22nd December 1960 which was the adjourned date of the hearing of the case the Police Prosecutor filed an application before the learned Magistrate stating that since there were eight other cases filed against the petitioner and accused No. 2 for offences under sections 409 467 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code and that those cases were exclusively triable by the Court of Session and the evidence and witnesses in those cases and in the present case were common and since the amount involved in the present case was more than Rs. 7 0 the learned Magistrate should instead of proceeding with the trial before himself commit the petitioner and accused No. 2 for trial to the Court of Session. The learned Magistrate for reasons which I may set out in his own words committed the petitioner and accused No. 2 to the Court of Session to stand their trial for the offences under sections 408 and 477a of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons were as follows:there are eight (8) other cases against the present two accused for the offence of forgery and criminal breach of trust in respect of the money of the same society. In those eight cases the offence of forgery punishable under section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. I decided to commit those eight cases to the Sessions Court of Panch Mahals Godhra. The present case and those eight cases are inter-related. The witnesses and the evidence are mostly common. The record accounts and vouchers produced are also common in all cases. For the reasons it is desirable that the present case be tried by the Sessions Court in order to secure a fair trial of all the cases. Moreover in the present case there is a charge for the misappropriation of a big amount of Rs. 7 225

( 2 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order of committal passed by the learned Magistrate filed a Revision Application in the Court of the Sessions Judge Panch Mahals Godhra. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that of the two grounds given by the learned Magistrate the ground based on the allegation that the eight cases in which the petitioner was committed to the Court of Session were inter-related with the present case and that the evidence oral as well as documentary would be mostly common in all the cases was not a valid ground on the basis of which an order of committal could be made by the learned Magistrate under section 347 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge however held that the second ground on which the learned Magistrate had made the order of committal was that in his opinion the offence was one which could not be adequately punished by him and that the learned Magistrate was therefore justified in making the order of committal against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly dismissed the Revision Application. The petitioner thereupon filed the present Revision Application before this Court.

( 3 ) MR. I. C. Bhatt learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner contended that the learned Sessions Judge was not right in observing that the ground on which the learned Magistrate had made the order o