As per case facts, a complaint was filed against seven persons under various sections of the IPC. The trial started as a warrant case, witnesses were examined, accused statements recorded, ... and arguments on charges heard. The Magistrate then framed charges under specific IPC sections and, without prior intimation, committed the appellants to the Court of Sessions. The appellants contended the commitment was illegal as the Magistrate failed to follow the procedure for commitment once he decided to commit a case that began as a warrant case. The question arose whether the commitment order was illegal due to the Magistrate's failure to comply with the procedure for commitment under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially regarding informing the accused and allowing defence evidence, and if such non-compliance was curable under Section 537 of the Code. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the commitment order was illegal because the Magistrate failed to comply with Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a Magistrate decides to commit a case that started as a warrant case, he must inform the accused and give them an opportunity to produce defence evidence before framing charges. Denying this right caused prejudice and failure of justice, preventing the accused from presenting evidence that might have influenced the charge framing. Such a breach of Section 208 is not curable under Section 537 of the Code.