Procedural irregularities in framing a charge and conducting the trial process can vitiate the trial and deprive the accused of their valuable rights under the Criminal Procedure Code.

1. Crl. R.P. 64/83 is by the first accused and the other by the second accused. They were convicted and sentenced by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Manjeri in CC 231/79 for rigorous imprisonment for six months each for offences punishable under S.408, 409 and 477A IPC directing the sentences to be suffered concurrently. Criminal Appeals filed by them were dismissed.

2. They were respectively Cashier and Accountant in the Manjeri Cooperative Urban Bank. The charges are temporary misappropriation of Rs. 250/ remitted by pw. 4, a subscriber of kuri conducted by the Bank, on 2-3-1976 towards instalment and falsification of accounts in relation to that amount.

3. The contention of the revision petitioners is that there is no evidence of entrustment. Prosecution case was that pw. 4 paid the amount to the first accused and though Ext.P2 receipt issued for that purpose was signed by both accused, second accused did not credit the same in the accounts and first accused did not show it in the cash balance. The emission to enter these amounts in the accounts and cash balance is proved and it is not disputed also. Revision Petitioners are the persons bound to make these entries is also a fact which h admitted and proved. If so the only question is whether there was entrustment.

4. Though the prosecution case was that payment was made by pw. 4, he said in the box that payment was made by him only through his son-in-law. The son-in-law who made the payment was not examined. Therefore it was argued that entrustment is not proved. But pw. 4 said that the son-in-law actually made the payment and Ext, P2 receipt obtained for that purpose was handed over to him. pw. 2, the Chief Accountant of the Bank, who is "conversant with the writing and signature of both the revision petitioners, was the Secretary of the Bank at the relevant time. Ext.P3 is the pass-book retained for the remittances made by pw.4. pw.2 proved the entries and initials in Exts.P2 and P3 as those of the revision petitioners. Receipt of the amount and omission to account the same was actually proved. It is true that the son-in-law of pw.4 who made the payment ought to have been examined. But the omission to examine him has not affected acceptability of the evidence regarding entrustment. Further there is the evidence of Pw.S, collection agent that on 1-9-1976 the disputed amount of Rs. 250/ was paid to him by the first accused and he issued Ext. P11(a) receipt. On the basis of these and other items of evidence the trial court and the appellate court found that offences under all the counts were established. I do not find any reason to interfere with those findings in revision subject to the contention regarding illegality of the trial which I am going to consider hereunder.

5. This is a warrant case instituted on a police report. S.238 to 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appearing in Chap.19 deal with the procedure for the trial of such cases. In the same chapter S.244 onwards deals with the procedure for trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report. In a warrant case instituted on a police report, after satisfying that the provisions of S.207 are complied with, the Magistrate has to consider the police report and the documents sent with it under S.173. If he thinks it necessary he can examine the accused also. In this connection he will have to give the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard. All these are for the purpose of considering whether the charge is groundless or whether there is ground for presuming that the accused committed an offence triable under that chapter which be is competent to try and adequately punish. If upon such consideration, examination, if any, and bearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless he will have to discharge the accused without framing charge. Otherwise he will have to frame a charge in writing which will have to be read over and explained to the accused and his plea recorded.