P.K. Musahary, J.

1. The accused petitioner charged with offence under Sections 489B and 489C, IPC, without being committed by the Magistrate concerned and having been forced to stand trial before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aizawl in Mizoram approaches this Court mainly for quashing the criminal proceeding on the ground of violation of provisions under Section 209, Code of Criminal Procedure and precisely on the ground that committal by the Magistrate is a must, if the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. This claim is based on prosecution case narrated as under :

One Md. Roshid (respondent No. 2) of Zawlnuam, who deals in condemned iron and steel, having a stock of about 10 quintals and 35 kgs, lodged FIR on 14.9.2005 with Zawlnuam Police outpost under Kanhmunph Police Station stating that Md. Ahad Choudhury (Petitioner) from Karimganj, wanted to buy his collection for an amount of Rs. 13,000/- and paid Rs. 10,000/-as advance on 12.9.2005 and took the stock loaded in a vehicle. Latter on, he found the said amount of Rs. 10,000/- is fake Indian currencies. The police registered a crime being Kanhmunph PS Case No. 21 of 2005 under Sections 489B and489C of the IPC and accordingly arrested and produced the accused petitioner before the Magistrate on 26.9.2005. He was released on bail on 28.9.2005. On completion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet on 28.1.2006.

2. I have heard Md. M.M. Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Public Procedure, appearing on behalf of the State of Mizoram.

3. Mr. Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that :

(i) The learned Magistrate did not commit the case as required under Section 209, Code of Criminal Procedure for trial before the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aizawl, took cognizance of the alleged offence, which is exclusively triable by the learned Court of Sessions.

(ii) Even assuming that the case was committed, it was incumbent upon the learned Additional Sessions Judge to issue or serve summons on the petitioner after taking cognizance of the case but it was not done so at any point of time, and as such, the criminal proceeding, not being sustainable in law, is liable to the quashed.

(iii) The charge-sheet dated 28.1.2008 does not show that any fake Indian currency was recovered and/or seized from the possession of the petitioner inasmuch as there is no mention in the charge-sheet that the aforesaid amount of Rs. 10,000/-allegedly paid by the petitioner as advance to the informant on 12.9.2005, was seized from the possession of the petitioner.

(iv) A conjoint reading of FIR and the charge-sheet does not prima facie disclose any offence and make out a case against the petitioner and as such, the continuance of the criminal proceeding against him would be an abuse of process of Court and unsustainable in law.

(v) It has further been submitted that the petitioner was suffering from various ailments and he was under treatment in hospital as an indoor patient during the period from 3.6.2006 to 30.7.2009 for which he could not appear before the Court. The petitioner's bailer, on the basis of false certificate obtained from the Registrar birth and death, Karimganj submitted an application dated 31.6.2007 for discharging him from the liability of a bailer before the learned Additional Sessions Judge stating that the accused-petitioner has died.

(vi) The learned Additional Sessions Judge without making any inquiry or obtaining any report from the police or from the authority and without application of mind issued warrant of arrest dated 27.3.2009 against the petitioner without first issuing any summons as provided under Section 87of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when is unsustainable under the exiting law. Before execution of the warrant of arrest, the accused-petitioner made an application dated 5.10.2009 for recalling the same and in its place prayed for issuan