ORDER J.G. Chitre, J. 1. Shri N.S. Purohit for the applicants. Shri H. S. Oberoi for the non-applicants. Both have been heard finally. 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 (hereinafter 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 opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. According to Shri Oberoi, the Magistrate can frame the charge in view of provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 246 of the Code without examining the prosecution witnesses. 3. Shri Oberoi submitted that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 2206 the accused can raise all such objections before the Magistrate before whom he had appeared in response to warrant issued against him. For the purpose of assisting the Court, Shri Oberoi answering the query of the Court, pointed out the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of R. S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, 1986 C.CrJ. (SC) 313 in which the Supreme Court has made observations on the point relevant to the application which is before this Court for decision. For the purpose of assisting the Court, Shri Oberoi answering the query of the Court, pointed out the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of R. S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, 1986 C.CrJ. (SC) 313 in which the Supreme Court has made observations on the point relevant to the application which is before this Court for decision. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has pointed out that "under the scheme of the Code there is no scope for the accused to lead defence evidence until the prosecution is closed and the examination of the accused Under Section 313 of the Code is over. With the amendment of the Code of 1898 in 1955 and under the new Code of 1973 the procedure relating to all varieties of criminal trials, excepting warrant cases on private complaints, has been simplified. The procedure in respect of trials according to warrant procedure in private complaints, however, continues to be cumbersome and time-taking and it is for Parliament to simplify the procedure for such cases keeping all aspects in view." 4. Thus, in the matter of R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (supra) the Supreme Court has dealt with cumbersome procedure which has been indicated by Chapter XIX of the Code dealing with criminal prosecution in context with warrant cases. If Section 244 of the Code is perused, it provides that when, in any warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police repot, the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Section 245 provides that if, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. Sub-section (2) of Section 245 provides that nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. 5. It is pertinent to note that while enacting the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Legislature has put Sections 244, 245 and 246 in a sequence. 5. It is pertinent to note that while enacting the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Legislature has put Sections 244, 245 and 246 in a sequence. If the language of these sections is considered in chronological order, it gives an answer to a rider which has been created by the act of framing of charge by the Magistrate against applicants who are approaching the Court for the purpose of solving it. 6. Section 246(1) provides that if when, such evidence has been taken, or at any previous stage of the case, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused The underlined (italicised) portion of Sub-section (1) of Section 246 makes it very clear that the Magistrate has to follow the procedure which has been laid down by provisions of Section 244 of the Code when the accused in such cases puts appearance before the Court. Thereafter if he comes to the conclusion, after taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, that no case against the accused is made out which, if unrebutted would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. Sub-section (2) has provided that nothing in this Section (245) shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. If the Magistrate comes to the conclusion after recording the evidence that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence under Chapter XIX which such Magistrate is competent to try and which in his opinion can be adequately punished by him, he shall frame charge against the accused. It means that this further empowers the Magistrate to form the opinion about his competency so far as the jurisdiction and power is concerned. It also speaks about the adequacy of the punishment which he can inflict on such accused. That does not mean that the Magistrate can ignore the provisions of Section 244. Provisions of Section 244 and Section 246 cannot be read independently. It also speaks about the adequacy of the punishment which he can inflict on such accused. That does not mean that the Magistrate can ignore the provisions of Section 244. Provisions of Section 244 and Section 246 cannot be read independently. The procedure has been laid down by Chapter XIX as indicated by the Legislature. In R. S. Nayak's case (supra) the Supreme Court has also opined that the procedure has to be followed though it is cumbersome and it is for the Legislature to think for making it simple if it is necessary for the benefit of public. 7. Thus, I have no hesitation in my mind that it was necessary for the learned Magistrate to examine prosecution witnesses likely to be produced before him. After recording their evidence he may come to the conclusion whether a case has been made out against the applicants which, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction against them. If he forms the opinion that such a case is made out against the applicants, he may follow further procedure which has been indicated by provisions of Chapter XIX. If he forms an opinion that no such case has been made out, he is at liberty to follow the procedure which has been indicated by Section 245 of the Code. Now remains the point in debate which needs to be answered "whether the applicants are entitled to raise all the objections before this Court or whether they should raise such objections before the trial Court?" The answer is that they should raise such objections before the trial court at the first instance. 8. Thus, summing up all in my view the procedure which has been followed by the learned Magistrate in framing the charge against the applicants without recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not consistent with legal provisions. By not following the procedure which has been laid down by Section 244 of the Code, the learned Magistrate has indirectly deprived the applicants of their legitimate right which has been provided by provisions of Section 244 of the Code. 9. The argument advanced by Shri N. S. Purohit shows that the applicants want to raise some objections in context with the jurisdiction of the Court. They are at liberty to raise the objections - permitted by law before the trial Court. 9. The argument advanced by Shri N. S. Purohit shows that the applicants want to raise some objections in context with the jurisdiction of the Court. They are at liberty to raise the objections - permitted by law before the trial Court. If the charge which has been framed against the applicants is permitted to be in existence, the learned trial Court would find it difficult to hear and decide the objections, if any, raised by the applicants in respect of the jurisdiction, competency of the Court in respect of the power to inflict punishment etc. Therefore, the charge which has been framed against the applicants will have to be quashed. 10. The applicants may raise their legal objections before the trial Court. If such objections are raised which are dealing with the jurisdiction of the Court or competency of the Court so far as power to inflict punishment is concerned, the learned Magistrate may deal with those objections at early stage. Thereafter the Magistrate shall record the evidence of prosecution witnesses which are indicated by the complaint in view of provisions of Section 244 and onwards sections embodied in Chapter XIX. If the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that a case has been made out against the applicants, which if unrebutted would warrant conviction, the Magistrate is at liberty to follow the procedure which has been laid down by the Code in Chapter XIX. The Magistrate is directed to conduct further trial in view of relevant provisions of law. 11. The application is allowed. The charge framed against the applicants is quashed. The Magistrate shall proceed with the case as per directions given in above paragraphs.