The accused has no right to demand trial by a specific procedure; trial begins upon cognizance and process issuance.

1. By this petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code'), the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the order dated 14-12-2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 71/2010 affirming the order dated 6-3-2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 94/2010 and for direction to the Court below to proceed further in accordance with law.

2. By order dated 6-3-2010, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for conversion of summon trial into warrant trial in accordance with S.259 of the Code, same was challenged before the revisional Court and vide order impugned, while affirming the order passed by the trial Court, the revisional Court has also dismissed the revision.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that respondent No. 1 has filed complaint against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under S.500 of the IPC, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. After due inquiry under Chapter XV of the Code, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class has registered complaint and issued process under S.204 (1) of the Code to the petitioner and respondent No. 2. The petitioner filed application under S.259 of the Code for conversion of summon trial into warrant trial vide application dated 15-1-2010 on the ground that if the trial is converted into warrant trial, the petitioner would get opportunity of cross - examining the complainant witnesses before framing of charge and if the case is not tried as warrant trial, irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 6-3-2010 on the ground that the application is not maintainable as the trial has not been commenced with an observation that the petitioner is at liberty to file application at subsequent stage, same was challenged before the Court of Sessions Judge, Raipur and vide order impugned, learned Sessions Judge held that the trial has been commenced, but the provisions of S.259 of the Code do not attract at the initial stage of trial and if at any stage of trial it appears to the Magistrate that it would be necessary in the interest of justice to convert the summon trial into warrant trial, the Magistrate is empowered to convert the summon trial into warrant trial and rehear the case and recall the witnesses.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the orders of both the Courts below, copy of the complaint and copies of other documents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this is petition under S.482 of the Code and same is maintainable even after rejection of revision filed on behalf of the petitioner. Petition under S.482 of the Code is also maintainable even against the interlocutory orders or any orders. Both the Courts below have misconceived in holding that the trial has not commenced or the trial is in initial stage and, therefore, the application under S.259 of the Code is not maintainable. Learned counsel further argued that trial commences from the date when the accused made his appearance. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioner has applied for conversion of summon trial into warrant trial at the initial stage. In summon trial the petitioner would not have remedy to cross - examine the witnesses to testify their truthfulness before charge in accordance with S.244 of the Code. The accused would l