MANIK CHANDRA HAZARIKA Vs. BIBHISON PEGU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the help of this application, made under Section 482, Cr PC, the petitioner, who is one of the accused in GR Case No. 50/2005, corresponding to CR Case No. 321 /2008, has put to challenge the order, dated 15.07.2009, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Lakhimpur, whereby the learned Magistrate has framed charge against the present petitioner and some others under Section 406 read with Section 34, IPC. I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, for the accused-petitioner, and Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. I have also heard Mr. H. Deka, learned counsel, for the opposite party No. 1.

(2.) Before coming to the merit of the present application, made under Section 482, Cr.PC, the material stages, which have led to the framing of the charge by the impugned order, are set out, in brief, as under :

(3.) As against the above procedure for framing of charge in a warrant case, a combined reading of Sections 244 and 245, Cr.P.C. shows that when in any warrant case, instituted otherwise than on a police. report, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced by the prosecution in support of their case. Section 245, Cr.P.C. shows that if, upon taking all evidence referred to in Section 244, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that the case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall frame appropriate charge or else, the Magistrate shall discharge the accused.