The Magistrate is not required to examine all the material witnesses in a case depending upon circumstantial evidence. He should examine the evidence of important witnesses in order to examine the strength of the circumstantial evidence and to determine whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused.

DAVE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision filed by accused Mohammad who has been committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pali, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pali, to stand his trial for an offence under Section 302, I. P. C.

( 2 ) IT is contended by the petitioner that his commitment is illegal and therefore it should be quashed. Ho had filed a similar application in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pali, but it was rejected on 31-3-60. Thereupon, he filed another application in this Court and it came for hearing before a learned Judge on 7-6-60, The learned Judge was of opinion that an important question of law was involved in this case and so he thought it proper to refer it to a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come before us.

( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the question of law, which has given rise to this revision application, it would be proper to set out briefly the prosecution case against the applicant. The prosecution story is that on the night between the 27th and 28th September, 1959, the applicant entered the house of one Nizam Ghoshi and stabbed one Mst. Chhoti with a dagger with the result that she died on the same night even before she could be removed to the hospital. A report of this occurrence was made at the police station, Pali, by one P. W. Majid at about I on the same night. The police at once started investigation and it came to the conclusion that although there was no eye-witness to the occurrence, there was very strong circumstantial evidence to connect the applicant with the crime. According to the prosecution, when the deceased was injured by the applicant she had raised a cry which attracted P. Ws. Aladin and Gola Singh to the site. They chased the applicant to some distance and although they could not get hold of him, they were able to identify him. Another circumstance pointed out by the prosecution was that a wrist watch was recovered from the site of occurrence and it was identified as that of the accused by two persons namely P. Ws. Nizam and Murad. The third circumstance was said to be the recovery of a blood-stained dhoti from the person of the accused at the time of his arrest on 3-10-59, while the fourth one was the alleged recovery of a blood-stained dagger and a shirt at the instance of the accused on 5-10-59. Lastly, it was alleged by the prosecution that the accused had made an extrajudicial confession before P. W. Ramju. On the basis of this evidence, the accused was challaned in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pali for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. The Magistrate examined 3 witnesses, namely, Aladin, Abas Ali, and Majid and further considered all the documents which were produced by the prosecution before him. Thereafter, he examined the accused and framed charge against him. The accused pleaded alibi and stated that he would produce a list of his defence witnesses before the Sessions Court. The Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the applicant and so he committed him to the Court of Session.

( 4 ) NOW, the main argument, which was raised by the applicant before the learned Sessions Judge and which has been again stressed before this Court is that the Magistrate did not examine all the material witnesses, that he failed to comply with the provisions of Section 207a (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore the commitment should be quashed and the case should be sent back to the Magistrate with direction to examine all the important witnesses.

( 5 ) BEFORE coming to the question whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate has committed any illegality under Section 207a Cr. P. C. , it seems necessary to consider the question whether the amendment made in the Criminal Procedure Code by Act No. 26 of 1955 has caused any effect on the powers of this Court for quashing the order of commitment made in a case instituted on a police report. This question has arisen because while it has been urged on be