( 1 ) THE opponent No. 1 has filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Ahmedabad alleging that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 206 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court issued process and pursuant thereto the accused appeared before the Court on 10-9-1987 Neither on that day nor on any day subsequent thereto the learned Magistrate took any evidence and straightway framed a charge on 6 The petitioner challenged in the Sessions Court that action of the learned Magistrate by filing a revision application. The Sessions Court rejected the same on the ground that it vas against an interlocutory order and therefore it was not maintainable. The Petitioner has therefore filed this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fur quashing the charge and for directing the learned Magistrate to follow the procedure as laid down in Secs. 244 245 and 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) IT is true that the petitioner has approached this Court under Sec. 487 of the Code after his revision application to the Sessions Court has been rejected. Ordinarily this Court would not entertain such an application but looking to the facts of this case and in order to avoid wastage of public time and money I have thought it just and proper to entertain this application

( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that this is a warrant case instituted otherwise-than upon a police report. It is also not in dispute that on the day on which the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate the prosecution had not kept any witness present nor any evidence was led on that day. It is also not in dispute that the learned Magistrate framed the charge without any thing more than the complaint and the substance of examination of the complainant under Sec. 200 of the Code.

( 4 ) WHAT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate should not have framed the charge without following the procedure laid down in Sec. 244 of the Code. He further submitted that the procedure prescribed by Secs. 244 to 246 of the Code does not permit the Magistrate to frame a charge in the manner in which the learned Magistrate has done in this case. He also submitted that the petitioner had brought this defect in the procedure to the notice of the learned Magistrate immediately as)d for that reason also this Court should interfere at this stage and direct the learned Magistrate to follow the correct procedure.

( 5 ) SECTION 244 of the Code provides 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 in support of the prosecution. Plain reading of Sec. 244 makes it clear that it is now necessary for the Magistrate to take down the entire evidence which may be produced by the prosecution. Section 245 further provides that if upon taking all the evidence referred to in Sec. 244 the Magistrate considers for reasons to be recorded that no case against the accused has been made out which if unrebutted would warrant his conviction the Magistrate shall discharge him. This Section empowers the Magistrate to discharge the accused if he considers that no case against the accused has been made out. But that can be done only-after taking all the evidence referred to in Sec. 244. Sub-section (2) of that Section then provides that nothing in that Section shall be deemed to prevent the Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate he considers the charge to be groundless. Thus under Sec. 245 of the Code the Court has two alternatives to follow; it may take all the evidence and then decide whether the accused should be discharged or not or it may not complete recording of all the evidence and discharge the accused at any previous sta