( 1 ) IT is the submission of Shri Purohit that the learned Magistrate was obliged to follow the procedure which has been laid down in Chapter XIX of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereafter referred to as the Code for convenience ). He argued that when the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate in view of the warrants which were issued against them, it was incumbent on the part of Magistrate to record the evidence of prosecution witnesses which were to be examined on behalf of complainant and thereafter by giving opportunity of cross-examination to the applicants, the Magistrate should have thought of framing charge against applicants. He further submitted that without recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses the learned Magistrate has framed charge against the applicants and, therefore, the said act is nothing but illegality which needs to be set aside by this Court by allowing this application.

( 2 ) SHRI Oberoi appearing for non-applicant pointed out provisions of Section 246 of the Code and submitted that in sub-Section (1) it has been indicated that if, when such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of