MD.BHOLA MIAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the petitioners and the State.

(2.) THIS application has been filed by the two petitioners for quashing the order, dated 03.07.2007 in Trial No. 26 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to pass an order on their application, dated 14.11.2002 seeking discharge for the offences u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. From the impugned order, it transpires that the Court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioners in one line and that too on the ground that since the case in hand was summon case, there was no need to pass the order on an application seeking discharge.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners, in this respect, has drawn my attention to the provisions of Sec. 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has submitted that under the said provision, it is always open for the learned Magistrate to discharge an accused if there be no materials against him. In this regard, he has also placed his reliance in the case of Shaikh Ahmed Hussain V/s. State of Maharashtra, 1991 0 CrLJ 2303 wherein it has been held that the procedure prescribed for trial of summon case envisages that the accused can be discharged in exercise of power u/s. 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bombay High Court in the said judgment in fact has considered the whole scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial of summon cases and has come to a conclusion that it is true that Chapter XX does not make any provision for discharge of the accused but Sec. 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure very clearly specifies that at any stage of the trial, the Magistrate may stop the proceedings. The Bombay High Court has gone to hold that if it is brought to the notice of the Magistrate at any stage of the proceedings, that there is no evidence or that the charge is groundless, he may forthwith stop the proceedings and acquit the accused.