B. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these applications for revision arise out of the same order dated 30-5-1989 passed by Special Judge, Meerut, Sri Ratiram, in E. C. Case No. 21 of 1986 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, P. S. Mawana, District Meerut. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Revision No 1305 of 1989 was admitted as the learned counsel for both the parties had agreed for its admission Criminal Revision No. 1287 of 1989 was connected with Criminal Revision No. 1305 of 1989 and is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. ( 3 ) BACHAN Singh, the opposite party, was being prosecuted in E. C. Case No. 21 of 1986 under Section 3/7, E. C. Act in the court of Special Judge, Meerut. On 29-5-1989 an application was moved by the applicant in the court concerned with the prayer that the proceedings may be dropped. It was alleged by the applicant that he was facing trial and was out of service for the last four years. The charge sheet in the case was submitted in the year 1985 and his statement was recorded in January, 1989. Thereafter a number of dates were fixed in the case but no evidence was led by the prosecution in the case. The applicant was being harassed and was entitled to be acquitted. ( 4 ) LEARNED Special Judge held that considering the non-availability of evidence and the application and affidavit of other witnesses and that statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. by the I. O. , he was of the view that Bachan Singh had no intention to commit any offence. Consequently, the learned Special Judge dropped the proceedings against Bachan Singh. ( 5 ) IT is against this order dated 30-5-1989 that both, State and Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. have filed separate revisions. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The main contention of the learned counsel for the State and Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. is that once the trial court has framed charges in the case, the trial court had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings. The question arises if the above contention is well founded. In my opinion it is. The main contention of the learned counsel for the State and Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Ltd. is that once the trial court has framed charges in the case, the trial court had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings. The question arises if the above contention is well founded. In my opinion it is. ( 7 ) IN this case charges were framed against Bachan Singh on 20-1-1988 and 14-3-1988 was fixed for recording of evidence. Chapter XVIII of Cr. P. C. deals with the procedure in trial before a court of Sessions while Chapter XIX of Cr. P. C. deals with the procedure in trial of warrant cases by Magistrates. ( 8 ) SECTION 226, of Cr. P. C. provides that the Public Prosecutor shall open his case before the Sessions Judge and Section 227 empowers the Sessions Judge to discharge an accused, if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted there with, and after hearing of the submission of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, he considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The charges are framed under Section 228 of Cr. P. C. and once a Sessions Judge frames charges against an accused under Section 228 of Cr. P. C. he has either to acquit or convict the accused. After framing of the charges the Sessions Judge has no power to drop the proceedings. ( 9 ) SIMILARLY Section 239 of Cr. P. C. empowers a Magistrate to discharge an accused 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 prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. Section 240, Cr. P. C. provides for framing of charges in a trial of warrant cases. Once the charges have been framed against an accused in a warrant case, the Magistrate can either acquit or convict the accused and he has no power to drop proceedings thereafter. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for Bachan Singh also referred to the provisions of Section 20 of Cr. P. C. which deals with the procedure for trial of summons cases by the Magistrates. In Chapter XX of Cr. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for Bachan Singh also referred to the provisions of Section 20 of Cr. P. C. which deals with the procedure for trial of summons cases by the Magistrates. In Chapter XX of Cr. P. C. also there are no provisions under which a Magistrate can drop the proceedings. ( 11 ) THUS the order passed by the learned Special Judge suffers from manifest error of law as he had no jurisdiction to drop the proceedings. ( 12 ) THE applications for revision are allowed. The order dated 30-5-1989 passed by learned Special Judge, Meerut in E. C. case No. 21 of 1986 (State v. Bachan Singh) under Section 3/7, E. C. Act, P. S. Mawana, District Meerut is hereby set aside. The record of the trial court shall be sent back to the court concerned which will proceed to try the case in accordance with law. Petitions allowed. .