Rathi, J. -- 1. Present revision has been preferred by the petitioner under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short CrPC) assailing the order of the committal passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra, district Gwalior in exercise of powers under section 209 of CrPC in a Criminal Case No.904/2006 on dated 10.4.2014.

2. As per prosecution story, one written complaint was filed on 5.8.1993 to the Director General of Police, Bhopal stating therein that Umadevi W/o Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi had executed one forged and fabricated Will dated 5.1.1993 in respect to the property situated at Dabra which was under the ownership of Keshav Dayal Sharma. This Will was executed by Umadevi who is daughter-in-law of said Keshav Dayal Sharma. On the date of execution of the aforesaid Will, Keshav Dayal was stated to be ill and under treatment and the Will was allegedly executed with the help of other co-accused, namely, Shivshankar, Kaushal Kishore, Ramashankar, Narendra Nath including the present petitioner Rakesh Kumar Dubey. On the basis of complaint, Crime No.166/95 was registered at Police Station Dabra, district Gwalior for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120B of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the trial Court and on 6.10.1998 charge against the petitioner/accused was framed for commission of offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of I.P.C. Photocopy of the chargesheet has been enclosed with this petition marked Annexure-P/3. Thereafter, after a period of sixteen years on 10.4.2014, the order of committal was passed by the learned Magistrate by saying that he has no jurisdiction and the offences committed are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been moved to this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that in this case, the prosecution against the accused-petitioner stood launched soon after registration of the FIR against the accused-petitioner on 4.4.1995 and on completion of the investigation,chargesheet was filed on 6.10.1998, but the learned Magistrate on applying his own interpretation concluded that in the light of the new Amendment which came into force from 22nd February, 2008, he has no jurisdiction to try with the offences, but are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. It is submitted that the said approach of the Magistrate has no footing and at the threshold, the order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel contended that in similar facts, the Hon. apex Court has dealt with impact of coming into force the amendment in the case Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R.[2013] M.P.741. On the aforesaid premises, it is prayed that the revision be allowed and the order be set aside.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State, on the other hand, supported the findings of the trial Magistrate and prays for dismissal of the revision.

5. Having regard to the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the parties, entire case has been perused.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that in the impugned order dated 10.4.2014, it was mentioned by the trial Court that co-accused Ramashankar Bhatnagar was discharged by the First Additional Sessions Judge in Case No.251/98 vide order dated 10.6.1999. Similarly, it was also pointed out that co-accused Narendranath had died on 25.12.2009. In para 5 of the order impugned it was also mentioned that though charges were framed but evidence has not been recorded and therefore in view of the amended provisions of CrPC, this case is being committed to the Court of Sessions.

7. Hence, the question involved in this case for consideration before this Court is whether the amended provision which came into force from 22nd February 2008 in the Schedule-I of the CrPC has retr