P. N. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application under Sectiosn 401 and 403 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 21. 1. 04 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in G. R. Case No. 3125 of 1998 under Sections 120b/406/477a of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the I. PC.) and for direction upon the learned Magistrate to complete process of consideration of charge and to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible. ( 2 ) LEARNED senior Advocate appearing for the State contended that the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 by adopting a device of making lesser entry of each electronic machine defalcated Rs. 51,62,400. 00 as fees in respect of visa applications from 1. 1. 96 to 13. 10. 98 and after a special audit this defalcation was traced out. Accordingly, FIR was lodged on 10th December, 1998 and on the basis of it G. R. Case No. 3125/98 was registered and after charge-sheet it has been transferred to the Court of the learned Metropolitan magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta. Twice earlier this Court was approached, once in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1067 of 2003 at the instance of this petitioner and the other in CRR No. 1749 of 2003 at the instance of opposite parties no. 2 and 3. In Criminal Misc. Case No. 1067 of 2003 this Court by order dated 1st July, 2003 directed the learned Magistrate to dispose of the application under Section 91 of the Code filed by accused persons and thereafter to take up matter for consideration of charge and further directed the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial. Thereafter, the accused opposite party No. 2 and 3 preferred CRR No. 1749/03 challenging the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting their application under Section 91 of the Code and this Court observed that order of the learned Magistrate requires no interference and learned Magistrate was directed to expedite the trial without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either to the parties. ( 3 ) HE contended that the accused persons are causing delay in progress of the trial and are not attending Court regularly and the learned magistrate also is not taking proper steps for consideration of charge. ( 3 ) HE contended that the accused persons are causing delay in progress of the trial and are not attending Court regularly and the learned magistrate also is not taking proper steps for consideration of charge. He contended that an application was filed before the learned Magistrate to take up the matter for consideration of charge on 25. 2. 04 as 24. 2. 04 was a. bandh day. But the learned Magistrate without fixing any short date for consideration of charge has fixed the matter on 29. 4. 04 as the next date. The accused persons have inspected all the documents and therefore, there is no bar to frame charge. As the documents are voluminous copies of all documents were not supplied and they were given inspection of the documents. ( 4 ) LEARNED public prosecutor appearing for the state contended that during trial all the documents may be relevant but at the time consideration of charge all the documents are not relevant. Defalcation in respect of any one offence is sufficient to frame the charge. Therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is not correct and the learned Magistrate may be directed to expedite consideration of charge and trial. ( 5 ) LEARNED Advocate for the accused opposite parties contended that charge cannot be framed perusing only one document. There is allegation of defalcation from several documents and inspection of the documents continued for several dates. Therefore, perusing only one document learned Magistrate cannot frame charge. The order of the learned magistrate, therefore, is not illegal and improper and the said order requires no interference. There is no merit in the revisional application and it should be dismissed. ( 6 ) FROM the submissions of the learned Advocates of the parties and form the revisional application and annexures I find that, there is allegation against accused opposite parties 2 and 3 that they have defalcated Rs. 51,62,400. 00 by adopting a device of making lesser entry of each in the electronic machine as fees in respect of VISA applications from 1. 1. 96 to 13. 10. 98. Ground IV of the revisional application indicates that there are more than one thousand offences complained of against the opposite parties and more than 300 charges are required to be considered as per provisions of sections 212 and 219 of the Code. 1. 96 to 13. 10. 98. Ground IV of the revisional application indicates that there are more than one thousand offences complained of against the opposite parties and more than 300 charges are required to be considered as per provisions of sections 212 and 219 of the Code. It is true that the FIR was lodged on 10. 12. 98 and though charge-sheet submitted, charge that has not yet been framed. ( 7 ) THE petitioner is an officer of the Office of British High Commission and the witnesses are working with Foreign and Commonwealth Office, government of United Kingdom and they are at present posted in different diplomatic missions throughout the world. I am of the opinion that if charge is not framed at an early date, a Foreign High Commission Office will have bad idea about judicial procedures adopted in our country. It is true that documents are voluminous for which copies of each and every document were not supplied to the accused persons and they were allowed inspection of all documents, still it is desirable that the learned Magistrate must realise that the complainant is not an Indian citizen but, an officer of a Foreign High commission Office. Unless the learned Magistrate makes all endeavour for consideration of charge at the earliest, not only the present High Commission office but, all other High Commission Office in our country will have bad impression about our judicial system and tendency of slow progress of criminal Courts in our country. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, I am of opinion that the learned Magistrate must take steps to frame charge at an early date and for this purpose for inspection of the relevant papers and documents the learned Magistrate must fix consecutive dates for inspection of papers and documents and thereafter he must frame a charge at the earliest. The argument advanced by the learned p. P. that one document is sufficient to frame charge is not acceptable. I am of opinion that before framing charge the learned Magistrate must inspect all the papers and documents and thereafter forming an opinion and being satisfied he should frame the charge. The argument advanced by the learned p. P. that one document is sufficient to frame charge is not acceptable. I am of opinion that before framing charge the learned Magistrate must inspect all the papers and documents and thereafter forming an opinion and being satisfied he should frame the charge. As the documents are voluminous the learned Magistrate should direct the prosecution to produce all the documents before him for inspection on consecutive days and thereafter the learned Magistrate shall frame charge and the learned Magistrate must complete consideration of charge within one month from the next date fixed by him, i. e. , on 29. 4. 04, if the matter of consideration of charge is not completed on 29. 4. 04. The learned Magistrate may ask the learned A. P. P. or the prosecution side to give him detailed written note on documents wanted in this case regarding how the mischief was done so that the said written note can help the learned Magistrate to frame the charge and it may help him to inspect the documents at an early date. Learned Magistrate is given liberty to follow provisions of Sections 212 to 220 of the Code. At the same time I direct the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial and to conclude the trial with utmost expedition without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and the learned Magistrate shall follow provisions of Section 309 (1) of the Code as far as it relates to holding of trial. If the learned Magistrate finds that accused opposite parties are not attending Court regularly and trying to delay progress of the case he would unhesitatingly take steps against accused persons in accordance with law. ( 9 ) THE revisional application is accordingly disposed of in terms of the order as indicated above. ( 10 ) SEND a copy of this order to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta for information and necessary action.