I.A. Ansari, J.

1. In a complaint case, triable as a warrant case', when a Court frames a charge on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the stage for framing of the charge was reached, whether such framing of the charge, in itself, would discharge the burden of proof, which, otherwise, rests on the prosecution and would the burden, in such a case, forthwith shift to the accused to disprove the charge if the statute, which creates the offence, makes provisions for raising of legal or statutory presumption against the accused as regards his guilt and, on the burden, being so shifted to the accused, whether it would be for the accused to adduce evidence in order to disprove the prosecution's case or whether the accused can. in such a case, discharge such a legal or statutory presumption by cross-examining the witnesses, who might have been examined by the prosecution before the stage for framing of the charge had reached, as well as those witnesses, whom prosecution may opt to examine after the charge is framed? To put it a little differently, whether the provisions, raising legal or statutory presumption, in a penal statute, would relieve the prosecution of its burden to adduce further evidence if a charge, in a case as indicated hereinbefore, is framed? These are the questions, which this Criminal Petition has raised.

2. The questions posed above bring us, in fact, to some vital, but elementary questions. The questions are: What is statutory or legal presumption? How does the statutory presumption differ from natural presumption or presumption of fact? How statutory or legal presumption can be discharged by an accused? What is the standard of proof required, in a criminal trial, to discharge a legal or statutory presumption? Can statutory or legal presumption be taken to have been discharged by an accused if the accused probabilities his defence by giving reasonable explanation as regards the evidence appearing against him?

3. Before answering the questions posed above, let me set out the material facts, in brief, which have given rise to this criminal petition made under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure. These material facts are:

(i) A complaint, in writing, was made by the Forest Range Officer, Bhuyanpara Range, which falls under Manas National Park, against the accused-opposite party Nos. 1 to 5. alleging, inter alia, thus: On the basis of the information received, on 21-3-2009, at about 12.30 a.m. that some persons were carrying 'trophies' with intention to sell, the complainant, along with some forest guards and police personnel, raided the house of one Sailen Talukdar and recovered six wild life 'trophies', namely, one Leopard skin, one Leopard Cub skin, two Bon Row, one Pigmy Hog Cub skin and one Claw Less (Otter). The questioning of the accused-opposite party revealed that the said 'trophies' had been collected by hunting the animals inside Manas National Park. This complaint case gave rise to CR Case No. 751 of 2009.

(ii) At the trial, the prosecution examined three witnesses before framing of charge. On the basis of the evidence, so adduced, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, framed a charge under Sections51(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short, 'the WL(P) Act') against the accused. The accused-opposite party pleaded not guilty to the charge so framed. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baipeta, fixed the case, on 19.9.2009, for cross-examination of the said three prosecution witnesses (already examined before framing of charge) by the defence and for such further examination of the prosecution witnesses as the prosecution would decide.

(iii) On the date, so fixed, i.e., on 19.9.2009, which was meant for cross-examination of the said three prosecution witnesses, who had already been examined before charge, and for recording of further evidence, which were to be adduced by the prosecution, a petition was filed by the prosecutio