The second accused in C.C.No.22 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam is the revision petitioner in this Criminal Revision Petition. This Crl. Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner pleading discharge under S.245(1) Cr.P.C. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the Crl. Revision Petition areas follows:

2. The first accused in the case imported a car purporting to be a 3200 cc Mercedez Benz Car Model S.320 from Dubai by Airway Bill No.098 7307 5693 dated 12-1-1998. M/s. Navabharath Enterprises was engaged for clearing the cargo. They filed a bill of entry M 374 for clearance, of Model S-320 Mercedez Benz Car. Reliable information was received by the Intelligence Officer of Directorate Revenue Intelligence to the effect that the documents produced for clearance of the vehicle were forged. The officer of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted the vehicle, at Air Cargo Complex, Thiruvananthapuram on 11-2-1998. The chassis number stated in the documents tallied with the chassis number inscribed in the vehicle. The engine number given in the document was No.10499422037783 but the number found in the engine was R 1040162406. The statement of the first accused was recorded by the Senior Intelligence Officer. One Ali Mubarak appeared before the Officer voluntarily. His statement was recorded on 16-2-1998.

3. The first respondent filed a complaint alleging that the importer had violated the condition Nos.(a) and (c) of the Public Notice dated 31-3-1997. It was alleged that the car was purchased by the petitioner from Ali Kalifa from South Ampton and was imported to Dubai in the year 1996. The records were manipulated to appear that the vehicle was imported in the year 1995 in the name of the first accused in an unlawful manner. It was also alleged that no payment was made towards the value of the car in Dubai before the return of the accused. It was also alleged that there was, no evidence to show that the car was used by the first accused for more than one year prior to his return to India. It was alleged that the first accused claimed clearance of the car by making a false declaration. It was alleged that the first accused did the above said act in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched by himself and the petitioner.

4. The petitioner as well as the first respondent appeared in pursuance of the summons received On the side of prosecution, tour witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 4. Exts.P1 to P6 proved and marked. After the prosecution evidence, was over, the case was posted for framing charge under S.245 Cr.P.C. The accused had argued for a discharge under S. 245(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by order dated 16-6-2004 rejected the prayer for discharge and posted the case for hearing and framing of the charge to 16-07-2004. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 19-08-2004. On that day, the petitioner filed Crl M.P.No.3335 of 2004 under S.245(1) Cr.P.C pleading for a discharge. The learned Magistrate by order dated 7-1-2005 dismissed Crl.M.P.No.3335 of 2004 and posted the case for framing charge. At that stage, the petitioner has filed this Crl.R.P challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) on 7-1-2005 by which Crl.M.P.No.3355 of 2004 was dismissed.

5. Heard Sri B. Raman Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri, John Varghese, Assistant Solicitor General for the first respondent and Sri K. Ravikumar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent.

6. At the outset I may state that the Crl.R.P itself is not maintainable. A perusal of the records shows that the case was one triable by the procedure prescribed under Chapter 19 dealing with warrant case. Chapter 19 Cr.P.C. deals with trial of warrant cases. Such cases are divided into two groups

(i) the cases