1. It appears to us that this was properly a case cognizable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 196; and that, consequently, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to convict, but ought to have committed the prisoner for trial to the Court of Session. We observe that there is only one case–Queen v. Oodun Lall (3 W.R., Cr., 17)–in which incidentally a conviction in a case somewhat resembling the present appears to have been held legal under Section 196; but there the conviction had taken place before a Sessions Judge with the aid of a jury, and the question of jurisdiction did not arise. We are not aware that that dictum has been followed in other cases, and that was a ruling by a single Judge. We think the conviction must be set aside, and that the Magistrate should commit the prisoner for trial.