1. Heard. Perused.

2. The petitioners, the accused in R.C.C. No.659/1994, pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Latur, have assailed the judgment and order dated 28.1.2008, passed by the learned Adhoc Sessions Judge-4, at Latur in Criminal Revision Petition No.68/2007.

3. The respondent No.2 lodged the complaint being R.C.C No.659/1994 against the petitioners in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur on 12.12.1994. The respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioners have forged the document dated 29.10.1989, described as “Kararnama” for the purposes of falsely claiming share in his property and used the said document for his own benefit. It appears that during the process of leading evidence before charge, the respondent No.2/complainant had examined himself and was to examine few more witnesses in support of his case for the purpose of framing charge; and an application for discharge came to be moved before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 20.7.2007 when the cross-examination of the respondent No.2 complainant was not over or reserved and the respondent No.2 complainant had not closed his evidence before charge. Learned Magistrate heard the parties and discharged the petitioners/ accused on two grounds:

(1) That there was a delay in recording evidence before charge and the complainant had failed to adduce evidence for 12 long years and had proceeded with the process of leading evidence before charge only when the Court was likely to discharge the accused in absence of the evidence, and

(2) The allegation that the respondent No.2 complainant came to know regarding the alleged forged document/ agreement after receipt of summons of Civil Suit No.601/1992 instituted by the petitioners is doubtful.

4. Before the revisional Court, the order of discharging the accused did not find favour. The learned revisional Court took into consideration the fact that the evidence before charge was not concluded and the order of discharge could have only been passed after giving due opportunity to the respondent No.2 complainant to lead all his evidence before charge and it was then open for the learned Magistrate to come to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence led by the complainant as to whether no case against the accused had been made out. It is for this reason the learned revisional Court reversed the order of discharge of the petitioner and directed the learned Magistrate to hear the plea on the discharge after giving due opportunity to the parties to canvass their pleas.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. S.S. Choudhari for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate was right in discharging the petitioners/ accused as there has been undue delay in leading the evidence before charge and the allegations regarding the knowledge of the forged document to the respondent No.2 complainant were suspicious. Though he fairly conceded to the warrant under Section 244 requiring giving of opportunity to the respondent No.2 complainant to lead all his evidence before framing of the charges, he pointed out clause (2) of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure giving liberties to the Magistrate to discharge the accused in previous stage of the case for good reasons to be recorded by him to hold that, the charge is found to be groundless.

6. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.2 – complainant submitted that it is the requirement of the law as could be seen from the provisions of Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that it is only on the basis of all the evidence led by the complainant in the cases instituted otherwise than on police report, the Magistrate can conclude whether charge could be framed or no case against the accused has been made out to frame the charges. He further pointed out that the evidence before charge was not concluded and the complainant had in stock few more witnesses to be examined for the purposes of placing before the learned Magistrate all such ev