Chhadami Lal Jain and Others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

_'959_ _The State of_ _Bihar_ v. _Hiralal Kejriwal_ _and Another_ 736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] ground for permitting the application tO be filed at a later stage. In the application for special leave filed in this Court, though it was stated that the application filed in the High Court for certificate was rejected, the reason for the rejection was not disclosed. Further, the State, presumably, filed this appeal to get the legal position clarified. We also believe that public interest does not require that the stale matter should be resuscitated. In the circumstances, we would be justified not to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal. _A ppe<il_ _dismissed._ CHHADAMI LAL JAIN AND OTHERS _v._ THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER (JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) _Criminal Trial-Commitment Order-Quashing_ _of-Magistrate_ _starting trial_ _as_ _in warrant case-Prosecution witness examined and_ _cross-examined-Charge framed_ _without giving opportunity_ _to_ _accused to adduce defence evidence and co1nmitment_ _order passed- -No_ _intimation to_ _accused_ _of_ _intention to_ _commit-Whether_ _commitment_ _order illegal-Prejudice--Code of_ _Criminal Procedure, I898_ (V _of_ _I898),_ _SS._ _208,_ _347_ _and 537._ A complaint was filed against seven persons under ss. 409, 465, 467, 471 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code. After examining the complainant summonses were issued to the accused to answer a charge under s. 406. The trial started as in a warrant case; prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined and the statements of the accused were recorded, and the Magistrate heard arguments on the question of framing charges. Thereafter, he framed charges under ss 409 and 465 read with ss. 471 and 477A, and without giving previous intimation of his intention to do so 1 passed an order committing the appellants to the Court of Sessions. The appellants, contended that the commitment was illegal because the case having begun as a warrant case it was incumbent upon the Magistrate, when he decided to commit the case to the Court of Session, to follow the procedure provided in Ch. XVIII Code of Criminal Procedure, but he failed to comply with the provisions of ss. 208 to 213 of _Subba Rao_ _]._ _'959_ S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 737 that Chapter. The complainant urged that even if the provi- _I959_ sions of ss. 208 to 213 had not been complied with no prejudice . . was caused to the appellants and the commitment could not be _Chhadami_ _Lal Jain_ quashed. v. _Held,_ that the commitment order was illegal as the Magistrate _The State_ _of_ had failed to comply with the provisions of s. 208 of the Code of _Utlar Pradesh_ Criminal Procedure. The proceedings having begun as in a warrant case, if the Magistrate, at a subsequent stage, was of the view that the case should be committed to the Court of Sessions, he had to act under s. 347(1) of the Code and to follow the procedure prescribed for inquiries under Ch. XVIII of the Code. When, in the present case, the Magistrate decided to commit the case, he should have refrained from framing the charge and should have informed the accused of his intention to commit and should have called upon the accused to produce defence evidence, if any. The failure of the Magistrate to intimate his decision to commit to the accused deprived them of the right to produce defence evidence, if any, under s. 208. The denial of this right was itself sufficient to cause prejudice to the accused and failure of justice inasmuch as the accused were prevented from leading evidence which might have induced the Magistrate not to frame the charge against them. _Subramania Iyer v._ _King-Emperor,_ (1901) L.R. 28 I.A. 257 _Pulukuri Kotayya v._ _King-Emperor,_ (1948) L.R. 74 I.A. 65, and' _Narain Rao_ v. _The State_ _of_ _Andhra Pradesh,_ [1958] S.C.R, 283, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLA'l'E JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1957. Appeal from the judgment and order dated the 8th May, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court, in Criminal Reference No. 149 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated the 14th January, 1956, of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Agra, in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 1954 and Criminal Misc. No. I of 1956. _G._ _S. Pathak_ and _Mohan Behari Lal,_ for the appel-. lants. _G._ _0. Mnthur,_ _0. P. Lal_ and _G._ _N._ _Dikshit,_ for the respondent No. I. _Jnnnrdcin Sharma,_ for respondent No. 2. 1959. September 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by W ANCHOO J.-This is an appeal on a certificate _Wanchoo_ _J._ granted by tho Allahabad High Court in a criminal matter. The facts of tho ease may be Rot out in some 738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)) _i959_ detail to bring out the point raised in this appeal. A ###### -.- . complaint was filed by Rajendra Kumar Jain against _Chhadam• Lal_ _Jain_ the four appellants and three others under ss. 409, 465, ###### Th• ;;. 1, of 467, 4 71 and 4 77 A of the Indian Penal Code. It is not _uttar Prnde.;h_ necessary for present purposes to set out the details of the complaint. Suffice it to say that after the state_Wanchoo_ _J._ ment of the complainant under s. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure hereinafter referred to as the Code) summonses were issued to the accused persons requiring them to answer a charge under s. 406 of the Penal Code. Prosecution witnesses wei·e then examined and cross-examined and the statements of the accused persons recorded. The Magistrate then heard arguments on the question of framing of charges which ###### were concluded on September 23, 1954. It was then ordered that the case should be put up on September 30, 1954, for orders. On that date the Magistrate framed charges against the four appellants under ss. 409 and 465 read withs. 471 and 477A of the Penal Code. On the same date the Magistrate ordered commitment of the four appellants to the Court of Session on these charges. The remaining three accused were discharged. 'J;'here was then a revision petition by Rajendra Kumar Jain against the discharge of one of the three accused, namely, Bhajan Lal. When the matter came ur before the .First Additional Sessions Judge Agra, he ordered _suo molu_ on April 9, 1955, after a perusal of the commitment order that Bhajan Lal be committed to the Court of cession to stand his trial. In view of this order he dismissed the revision petition as infructuous. Thereupon Bhajan Lal went in revision to the High Court. That petition was heard by Roy, J., and he set aside the order of commitment of Bhajan Lal and one of the reasons given by him for doing so was that a Magistrate was not empowered _to_ frame a charge and make an order of commitment until he had taken all we h evidence as the accused might produce before him. As Bhajan Lal had not been called upon to produce evidence in defence the order of commit ment made by the Sessions .Judge was held to be not in accordance with law. This order was passed on S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 739 October 6, 1955. Thereupon on January 7, 1956, the _z959_ four. appellants file~ a revision petition befo;e the _Ckhadami Lal_ _Jain_ Sessions Judge praymg that the order of commitment v. passed against them be quashed and the main reason _The_ _state of_ advanced in support of this petition was that the _Uttar Pradesh_ learned Magistrate had not observed the mandatory provisions oflaw laid down in ss. 208 to 213 of the Code _Wanchoo_ _I·_ which were essential for a valid commitment. This petition came up before the same First Additional Sessions Judge and he made a reference to the High Co11rt that as the procedure followed by the Magis. tr~te was irregular the order of commitment, dated September 30, 1954, was bad in law, and should be quashed. This reference came up for hearing before another learned Judge of the High Court, namely, Chowdhry, J., and he took the view that the Magistrate had not failed to comply with the provisions of s. 208 and that non-compliance with the provisions of ss. 211 and 212 was curable under s. 537 of the Code. He, therefore, rejected the reference. There was then an applica. tion for a certificate to appeal to this Court which was allowed, particularly, as the view taken by Chowdhry, J., was in conflict with the view taken by Roy; J., already referred to. The main contention of the appellants before us is that as the case began before the Magistrate as a warrant case under s. 406 of the Penal Code, it was incumbent upon the Magistrate, when he decided, in view of the provisions of s. 347 (1) of the Code, that the case should be ·committed to the Court of Session, to follow the procedure provided in Ch. XVIII of the Code and inasmuch as he had failed to comply with ss. 208 to 213 of the Code the commitment was bad in law and should be quashed. The first question that falls for consideration, therefore, is whether the Magistrate when he began this case, was proceeding in the manner provided for the trial of warrant cases. Section 347 (1) of the Code comes into play when at any stage of the proceedings in any trial before a Magistrate, it appears to him that the case ought to be tried _by_ the Court of 740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] _i959_ Session ; he has then to commit the accused under the - provisions herein before contained. The Sessions _ChhadamiLal_ _Jain_ Judge who made the reference held that the case _Th_ ;· 1 _1_ before the Magistrate 'proceeded from the beginning ##### Utt;, p::a:sh as if it was a trial of a warrant case. It was on that basis that the Sessions Judge held that when' the _wanchooJ._ Magistrate made up his mind that the case ought to be committed to the Court of Sessions in view of the provisions of s. 347(1) of the Code it was his duty to observe the procedure laid down in Ch. XVIII, parti cularly, under ss. 208, 211 and 212 of the Code. The order of reference was sent to the Magistrate for explanation, if any, and the Magistrate replied that he had no explanation to submit. He did not say)n his explanation that he was not proceeding as in a warrant case and that the proceedings before him throughout were proceedings in the nature of an inquiry under Ch. XVIII. W'hen, however, the matter came up before the High Court, Chowdhry, J., was of opinion that though the Magistrate was competent to try the case as summonses has been issued under s. 406 I. P. C. only, it was open to him to hold an inquiry under Ch. XVIII from the very beginning in view of the provisions of s. 207 which empower a Magistrate to follow the procedure provided in Ch. XVIII in cases exclusively triable by a Court of Session and also in cases which are not exclusively triable by the Court of Session . but which in the opinion of the Magistrate ought . to be tried by such Court. The High Court was further of the view that the offence mentioned in the summons should be deemed to have given notice to the accused that it was optional with the Magistrate to hold an inquiry with a view to commit them to the Court of Session or to try them himself as in a warrant case because column 8 of Schedule II of the Code says that a case un<ler s. 406 is triable by a Court of Session, Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class. Therefore, according to the High Court the matter was at large whether the Magistrate was going to adopt one procedure or the other despite the issue of summonses under s. 406 of the Penal Code and that S.O.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS **741** nothing had happened to induce the belief in the _z959_ accused that they would be tried as in a warrant case. _Chh_ _-:-L_ . The High ourt, t erefore, held . C h that t e case was pro. h _adami a_ v _11_ . "'" ceeded with from the beginning as if it was an inquiry _Th• s;at•_ _of_ under Ch. XVIII and on that view it held that there _Uttar Pradesh_ was no non-compliance with s. 208 of the Code. As for non-compliance with ss. 211 and 213, the High _Wamhoo_ _f._ Court was of the view that it was curable under s. 537 of the Code as no prejudice was caused. We must say with respect that this view of the nature of the proceedings before the Magistrate is not ###### correct. It is true that it is open to a Magistrate to hold an inquiry from the beginning under Chapter XVIII in a case not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. But the mere fact that the Magistrate has such power does not necessarily indicate to the accused that he is holding an inquiry under Ch. XVIII rather than a trial before himself. Where the case is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the accused would n,aturally conc1ude that the proceedings before the Magistrate are in nature of a trial and not ##### an inquiry under Ch. XVIII. If the Magistrate intends to use .his powers under s. 207 and hold an inquiry from the beginning in a case not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the only way in which the accused can know that he is holdillg an inquiry and not a trial is by the Magistrate informing the accused that he is holding an inquiry under Ch. XVIII and ###### not trial. If he fails to do so, the accu.sed can reason ably conclude that a trial is being held. In this case undoubtedly the Magistrate did not indicate to the accused from the beginning that his proceedings were in the nature of an inquiry under Ch. XVIII. Therefore the accused would naturally conclude that the proceedings before him were in the nature of a trial of # a warrant case as the summonses that they had received were under s. 406 of the Penal Code only. The fact that in the complaint s. 467, which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, was mentioned is of no consequence for the summonses to the accused were ###### only for a trial under s. 406 of the Penal Code. It must, therefore, be held that the :proceedin~s before 9t 742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] _'959_ the Magistrate began a.s in the trial of a warrant ca.se _Chhadami Lal_ _Jain_ and ifd!he Ma.gistfrahte a~ a. suhbseqhuent stage of the v. procee mgs was o t e view t at t e case should be _The State of_ committed to the Court of Session, he would have to _Ullar Pradesh_ act under s. 347 (1) of the Code. We have been a.t pains to refer to this aspect of the matter for considera._Wamhoo_ _J._ tions would be different if the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session and began from the outset as a.n inquiry under Ch. XVIII. Wha.t we shall say hereafter must, therefore, be taken to apply only to a case which began as a proceeding in a warrant or summons case a.nd in which the Magistrate at a. later stage takes action under s. 34 7 ( 1 ). This brings us to a consideration of the duty of the Magistrate who takes action under s. 347 (1) of the Code. That section reads as follows : " If in a.ny inquiry before a. Magistrate or in a.ny trial before a. Magistrate, before signing judgment, it appears to him at any stage of the proceedings tha.t the ca.se is one which ollght to be tried by the Court of Session or High Court, and if he his empowered to commit for trial, he shall commit the accused under the provisions hereinbefore contained." The first question that ha.s to be decided is the meaning of the words "under the provisions hereinbefore contained". These words have been the subject of decision by a number of High Courts a.nd the High Courts are unanimous that they mean that if the Magistrate decides at some stage of the trial to commit the accused, he has to follow the provisions contained ###### in Ch. XVIII. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions for the words themselves a.re quite clear. They lay down that if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the accused ought to be committed for trial, he shall commit in accordance with. the provisions contained in the earlier part of the Code, namely, in Ch. XVIII. This of course does not mean tha.t the Magistrate must begin over a.gain from the beginning. All that he has to do when he decides tha.t the case ought to be committed is · to inform the accused a.nd see that the provisions of Ch. XVIII a.re complied with liO fa.r a.s they ha. ve not been complied S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 743 with up to the stage at which he decides that there _z959_ ought to be a commitment. Now the procedure under _Chh_ _d_ . _L_ . _11_ Ch. XVIII is laid down in ss. 208 to 213 of _a_ am~. " _am_ the Code. The Magistrate begins by hearing the _The State of_ c:omplainant, if any, and takes all evidence that _Uttar Pradesh_ may be produced in support of the prosecution or on behalf of the accused or as the Magistrate may call _Wanchoo_ _f._ himself. The Magistrate is also required to issue process to compel the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other thing if the complainant or officer conducting the prosecution of the accused applies to him. After the evidence under s. 208 has been taken the Magistrate then examines the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him under s. 209. Thereafter if he is of opinion that there are not sufficient ground& for committing the accused for trial, he can discharge him unless it appears to him that such person should be tried before himself or some other Magistrate in which case he has _t9_ proceed accordingly. On the other hand, if the Magistrate is of opinion after taking the evidence and examining the accused that there are sufficient grounds for committing the accused for trial, he has to frame a charge under s. 210 declaring with what offence the accused is charged. The charge is then read over and explained to the accused and a copy thereof, if he so requires, is furnished to him free of cost. After the charge is framed the Magistrate calls upon the accused under s. 211 to furnish a list of persons orally or in writing whom he wishes to be summoned to give evidence on his trial. The Magistrate may also allow the accused to furnish a further list at a later stage in pis discretion. Section 212 gives power to the Magistrate in his discretion to summon and examine any witness named in any list under s. 211. Then comes s. 213 which lays down that if the accused has refused to give a list as required by s. 211 or if he has given one and the witnesses, if any, included therein whom the Magistrate desires to examine, have been summoned and examined under s. 212 the Magistrate may make an order committing the accused for trial by the High Court or the 744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] _'959_ Court of Session and shall also briefly record the reasons _'959_ #### Chlad -:-;al for such commitment. On the otherhand,ifheissatis _1 ._ ' am~. _•in_ ~ed after hearing the witnesses for the defence that _The state of_ there are not sufficient grounds for committing the _Uttar Pradesh_ accused, he may cancel the charge and discharge the accused. ###### Wanchoo ]. It will be seen from this analysis of the provisions relating to commitment that s. 208 gives a right to the accused to produce evidence in defence before the Magistrate examines him under s. 209 and proceeds to frame a charge under s. 210. Now when a Magistrate makes up his mind to commit a case not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. under the power given to him under s. 347 (1) of the Code, he has to follow this procedure. But as we have said earlier it is not necessary that the Magistrate should begin from the beginning again when he so makes up his mind. The Magistrate may make up his mind at any stage of the trial before him and generally speaking four contingencies may arise. Firstly, he may make up his mind after the 'trial is practically over and the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and crossexamined after the charge, the accused has been examined both under ss. 253 and 342 of the Code and and all the defence evidence has been taken. In such a case ss. 208, 209 and 210 have been complied with and all that the Magistrate has to do is to intimate to the accused that he intends to commit him for trial and ask him to give the list of witnesses under s. 211 and proceed thereafter as provided in Ch. XVIII. Secondly, the Magistrate may make up his mind after all the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and cross-examined and the charge has been framed but no defence has been taken. In such a case that part of s. 208 which lays down that all the evidence for the prosecution shall be taken, has been complied with and the Magistrate may then proceed to comply with the rest of section 208 and take the defence evidence.and then proceed further under ss. 209 to 213 and amend the charge so as to make it conformable to a charge in an inquiry under Ch. XVIII or cancel it. Thirdly, the Magistrate may make up his mind after S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 745 some of the prosecution witnesses have been examined _x959_ and cross-examined and a charge has been framed. In _Chh_ _d_ _-:-L_ . #### . fh aamiaasn 1 1 such a case he has to examme the rest o t e prosecu- v. tion witnesses under s. 208 and take the defence evid- _The state of_ ence, if any, produced by the accused and then proceed _Uttar Pradesh_ under ss. 209 to 213 amending or cancelling the charge already framed as indicated earlier. Lastly, the _Wamhoo]._ Magistrate may have only just begun taking evidence for the prosecution and may not have framed a charge. In such a case he takes the rest of the prosecution evidence and complies with the provisions from ss. 208 to 213. But in each of these four contingencies it is the duty of the Magistrate to intimate to the accused that he has made up his mind to commit in view of the provisions of s. 347(1) and then proceed in the manner ###### indicated above. It is necessary that the accused should know when the Magistrate makes up his mind to commit so that their right under s. 208 to produce defence, if any, before commitment is made is safeguarded. Now what happened in this case was this. The Magistrate had apparently taken all the prosecution evidence and the prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined ; the Magistrate had framed no charges upto September 30, 1954. He had heard arguments on the question whether any charges should be framed and had fixed September 30, 1954, for orders in this respect. When, therefore, he decided on September 30, 1954, that the case ought to be committed to the Court of Session, the proper course for him was to refrain from framing any charges and intimate to the accused that he intended to commit them for trial. He then should have called upon them to produce defem::e evidence, if any, under s. 208 and then proceeded further under Ch. XVIII. The Magistrate, however, failed to inform the accused that he had made up his mind to proceed under s. 347 (1) and to commit them for trial. What he did on September 30, 1954, was to frame charges forthwith and record an order committing the accused to tl1e Court of Session under s. 213 of the Code. He thus deprived them of their right to lead defence evidence, if any, under ###### s. 208. It may be that if he had told them that he was 746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)) _'959_ going to proceed under s. 347 (I) and commit them for _Chhadami 7.ai_ _Jain_ trial and asked them if. there was any defence evidence v. to be produced, they might have said that they did not _The state of_ wish to produce any defence before him at that stage. _Uttar Pradesh_ But what the accused would have said if the Magistrate had proceeded in this manner is irrelevant in _Wanehoo]._ considering the question whether the commitment in this case was bad in law inasmuch as it did not comply with s. 208 so far as giving the accused an opportunity to lead defence evidence, if any, was concerned. The fact remains, therefore, that in this case the Magistrate when he decided to act under s. 347 (1) did not intimate that decision to the accused and proceeded forthwith to commit them for trial under s. 213, thus depriving them of the right to produce defence evidence, if any, under s. 208. The next question which falls for consideration is the effect of this non-compliance with s. 208 of the Code and whether it is curable under s. 537 of the Code. The effect of non-compliance with variqus provisions of the Code and whether such non-compliance is curable under s. 537 have been the subject of a large num her of cases before various High Courts and also before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the ###### Privy Council. It is not necessary to refer to this mass of authorities. One of the earliest of these case decided by the Privy Council is _Subramania Iyer_ v. _King-Emper:.or('),_ while one of the latest is _Pulukuri_ _Kotayya_ v. _King-Emperor(')._ The law was summed up by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in _Pulukuri Kotayya's case_ (2) at p. 75 in these words: " When a trial is conducted in a maner different from that prescribed by the Code (as in _N.A._ _Subra-_ _mania Iyer' s case_ ( [1 ] ), the trial is bad, and no question of curing an irregularity arises ; but if the trial is conducted substantially in the manner prescribed by the Code, but some irregularity occurs in the "course of such conduct, the irregularity can be cured under s. 537, and none the less so because the irregularity involves, as must nearly always be the case, a breach of one or more of the very compre hensive provisions of the code. The distinction (1) (1901) L.R. 28 I.A. 257. (z) (19<18) L.R. 7" I.A. 65. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 747 drawn in many of the cases in India between an _x959_ illegality and an irregularity is one of degree rather _Chh_ _d_ ~ Th" . fi d . th _a_ _ami a_ 1 _1_ _ain_ [. ] t h an - f km . [. d ] is view n s support m e v. decision of their Lordships ' Board in _Abdul_ _The Stale of_ _Rehman_ v. _The King-Emperor_ (1) where failure to _Uttar Pradesh_ comply with as. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to be cured bys. 535 and 537." _Wanchoo_ _f._ These observations were quoted with approval by this Court in _Narain Rao_ v. _The State of AndhraPradesh(_ _[2]_ _)._ ##### It seems, therefore, fruitleis to consider whether the non-compliance with s. 208 in this case is an illegality which cannot be cured under s. 537 or an irregularity which is curable thereunder. As the stage of trial has not been reached in this case, no question arises of considering whether the trial has been conducted in a manner different from that prescribed by the Code. What we have to see is whether the breach of s. 208 which has occurred in this case is such that the Court will presume prejudice to the accused by the ##### mere fact of the breach. If such presumption can be made, the breach would obviously be not curable under s. 537 of the Code, even assuming that that section applies. The question, therefore, which eventually emerges is whether this breach of s. 208 is of such a character that the Court wilt presume that there has been prejudice to the accused by the mere fact of the breach. Now the accused has a right under s. 208 to produce evidence ir. defence, if any, before. the Magistrate proceeds to decide whether a char~e should be framed or not. The Magistrate's decision whether the charge should be framed or not is bound to be affected one way or the other if evid ence is produced by the accused, for the Magistrate would then be bound to consider the effect of that ##### evidence on the question of framing the charge. If the accused is denied the opportunity of leading that evidence which he has a right to do under s. 208, it seems to us that the denial of such right is sufficient to cause prejudice to the accused and s. 537 would have no application to a case of this kind. The possibility that the accused may not have produced defence if asked by the Magistrate whether he would do so, (1) (1926) L.R. ~ .. I.A. _96._ (2) [19~8] s.c.~. 28~. 748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] _i959_ is of no consequence, so far as this conclusion is ##### Ch/Jada --:-Lal . concerned. If this is the reply expected, it makes it _1_ _1_ _m;._ _••n_ all the more incumbent on the Magistrate to inform _The stat• of_ the accused that he was intending to commit the _Uttor Pradesh_ case and ask him if he wished to produce evidence. ##### If the accused did not want to do so, the Magistrate _wanchoo_ _J._ would have done his duty and his way would be clear to proceed further with his intention to commit the accused. But when the Magistrate did not intimate to the appellants in this case that he was intending to commit them for trial and proceeded to frame charges and pass the order of commitment forthwith on September 30, he was denying to them their right to produce defence under s. 208 of the Code. The denial of that right is in our opinion in itself sufficient to cause prejudice to the accused and failure of justice inasmuch as the accused were prevented from leading evidence which might have induced the Magistrate not to frame a charge against them or cancel it. We are, therefore, of opinion that the breach of s. 208 which took place in this case was such as was bound to cause a failure of justice and there is, therefore, no question of the application of s. 537 in these circumstances. The commitment is, therefore, bad in law and must be quashed on this ground alone. In the petition of appeal the appellants have referred also to breach of provisions of ss. 211, 212 and 213 of the Code. As ·we have come to the conclusion that the breach of s. 208 in this case is sufficient to invalidate the commitment it is not necessary to consider the effect of the further breach of ss. 211, 212 and 213. What we have said in this case with respect to the effect of the breach of s. 208 may not be taken as applying to the breach of ss. 211, 212 and 213 for the considerations arising out of those brea ches may be different. We, therefore, allow the appeal, quash the order of commitment as well as the charges framed and send the case back to the Magistrate to proceed in the manner indicated above according to law. _Appeal allowed._