Muttusami Ayyar, J.
1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in thinking that the commitment is bad and must be quashed.
2. The accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 468* and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and cognizable exclusively by the Sessions Court. The Sub-Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground that there was very little evidence to show that the document, which formed the subject of the charge, was false, and that there was no evidence to prove that the document was either made by the accused, or that he had any intent to defraud. But on perusal of the preliminary register, the District magistrate considered that there was a prima facie case against the accused, and directed his committal to the Court of Sessions, without calling upon the accused, however, to show cause why he should not be committed. The power to order a committal is conferred on the District Magistrate by Section 436, subject to the provision that the accused should have an opportunity of showing cause to him why the commitment should not be made, and the order of the District Magistrate and the commitment made thereunder must be set aside.
* Forgery for the purpose of cheating.
[Section 468: Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document forged should bo used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.]