The revision petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 240 Cr.P.C. framing charges against him under Section 406, 418 & 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. He prayed before the learned Magistrate that he may be discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The request was turned down and charges were directed to be framed against the petitioner.

2. Allegations have been raised against the petitioner, the 2nd accused in a complaint filed by the defacto complainant a financier, who had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 1st accused. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. The petitioner was a guarantor in the said hire purchase agreement. The 1st accused who allegedly availed the loan and entered into the hire purchase agreement with the petitioner as a guarantor allegedly, contrary to the stipulations in the hire purchase agreement, had sold the vehicle to another person without the consent and knowledge of the defacto complainant, the financier. Thereby it is alleged that the 1st accused has committed the offences punishable under Section 406, 418 & 420 I.P.C. The 1st accused the 2nd accused who has come before this Court. He faces allegations under Section 406, 415 & 420 r/w 34 I.P.C.

3. On a perusal of the impugned order and after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, opportunity was given to the learned Public Prosecutor to take instructions and place before the Court the specific circumstance on the basis of which charge is sought to be framed against the petitioner the 2nd accused. The learned Public Prosecutor wanted time to take instructions from the Investigator. The Investigator was also directed to be present before the Court.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor points out only two circumstances which according to him, would justify the framing of charge against the petitioner. They are (1) that the petitioner had signed as a guarantor and had undertaken to ensure that the stipulations in the agreement are complied with and (2) even after the petitioner came to know of the alleged culpable conduct of the 1st accused, he had not raised his little finger to prevent the act of the 1st accused its effect.

5. I must state that the reasons urged are totally insufficient to come to a conclusion that the petitioner must face a charge for the offences alleged against him. At the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. the court has to consider whether the charger leveled against the petitioner are groundless or not. I extract Section 239 below:

"Section 239: When accused shall be discharged:- If upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being the heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing."

Section 240 follows Section 239 and it reads as follows:

"Section 240: Framing of charge: -(1) upon such consideration examination, if any, and hearing the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." (emphasis supplied)

The crucial question to be considered is whether the charge raised is groundless. If it is not groundless and the person is not entitled to be discharged under Section 239 charges deserve to be framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C. Of course, the language of Section 239 and 240 may create some confusion as to whether there is another category of