Judgment Anand Prasad Sinha, J. This application is directed against the impugned order dated 13-11-1981 passed by Shri J.K. Sen, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. Dhanbad, in G.R. Case No. 1340 of 1976 by which the learned Magistrate has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under sections 409, 467, 468, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that admittedly some of the papers have not been supplied which ought to have been supplied to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after to be referred to as the Code). It appears that the charge has been framed on 13-11-1981 and before that date an application had been filed on behalf of the petitioner that all the papers mentioned in the chargesheet have not been supplied and that be supplied. It appears that in spite of that those papers had not been supplied and that being so, the petitioner had filed another application on 13-11-1981 for the supply of those papers which were wanted by the petitioners. From perusal of the ordersheet dated 13-11-1981 it appears that absolutely no speaking order has been passed with regard to the prayer of the petitioner for supply ot the papers. 3. It his to be appreciated that a Magistrate under section 238 of the Code has to be satisfied that the provisions of section 207 of the code has duly been complied with. If all the papers mentioned in the chargesheet have not been supplied, in my opinion, that is not compliance of the provisions of section 207 of the Code. It would appear from the reading of section 239 and 240 of the Code that while framing of the charge, the magistrate has not to Act, mechanically but he has to apply his mind and thus in view of the fact some of the documents had not been supplied, the impugned order framing charge suffers from two infirmities, firstly that there is denial of justice in the manner, that the petitioner has been deprived to resist the claim of the charge by advancing arguments and secondly that there is no substantial compliance of the provisions of lection 207 of the Code. 4. Accordingly, the impugned charge framed against, the petitioner is hereby set aside. 4. Accordingly, the impugned charge framed against, the petitioner is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to fully comply with the provisions of section 207 of the Code first and thereafter after bearing the parties may pass necessary order framing charge in accordance with law. With this observation, this application is allowed. Application allowed