Judgment 1. The petitioner has prayed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for quashing the impugned order dated 3rd September, 2002 of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna passed in Case No. 1 (E) of 1995 whereby the petitioners prayer for discharging him under Sec. 239 of the Code was refused and the learned Magistrate ordered for framing of charge under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner Gurucharanjit Singh, the Proprietor of M/s Regency Enterprises who received payment of Rs. 90,000/- (ninety thousand) from the State Bank of India, Patna Branch on a forged Bank Draft No. OL/AH 292236 dated 1st September, 1995. The learned Magistrate mentioned in his order that there was allegation on the petitioner that he was engaged in forging of bank drafts and thereby obtained payment of the money under the forged draft. 2. The petitioner has filed the supplementary charge-sheet (Annexure 2/1) which contains the materials against the petitioner. The materials are as under: The investigation relating to DD No. OL/AH 292236 dated 1st September, 1995 for Rs. 90,000/- disclosed that accused Gurcharanjit, Proprietor of M/s Regency Enterprises, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna, accused Om Prakash (Salesman) of M/s Regency Enterprises and accused Hira Singh, Proprietor of the Retail Price Liquor Shop, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance thereof accused Gurcharanjit, Proprietor of M/s Regency Enterprises encashed the forged D.D. bearing No. OL/AH 292236 dated 1st September, 1995 for Rs. 90,000/- purportedly issued by the State Bank of India, Delhi Branch favouring M/s Regency Enterprises. The questioned DD was received by accused Gurcharanjit through accused Om Prakash and accused Hira Singh who were his employees. 3. Investigation further disclosed that a Retail Price Liquor Shop was running in the same premises where M/s Regency Enterprises, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna was located. The questioned DD was received by accused Gurcharanjit through accused Om Prakash and accused Hira Singh who were his employees. 3. Investigation further disclosed that a Retail Price Liquor Shop was running in the same premises where M/s Regency Enterprises, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna was located. The said DD bearing OL/AH 292236 favouring M/s Regency Enterprises was deposited by the firm on 5th September, 1995 in its cash credit account No. CC/96 maintained in the Punjab & Sindh Bank Branch, Fraser Road, Patna of which accused Gurcharanjit was the Proprietor from where it was sent in clearing to SBI, Main Branch, Patna, it was passed on the same day and the amount was credited in the said cash credit Account No. CC/96, from where the amount was withdrawn by accused Gurcharanjit. 4. The investigation established that the said DD was not issued by SBI, Dehri Branch and the signatures of the SBI Officers appearing on it were forged. 5. Investigation disclosed that Gurcharanjit had obtained whole sale licence for the sale of foreign liquor vide Licence No. 3/95-96 dated 10th April, 1995 whereas Sh. Hira Singh son of Sh. Ganesh Singh, who was an employee of M/s Regency Enterprises, obtained Retail Vend Licence for sale of Liquor. Accused Gurcharanjit had falsely and dishonestly shown receipt of the aforesaid forged draft from accused Hira Singh and accused Om Prakash for sale of liquor to certain unknown person but their record did not show that any liquor was sold against the aforesaid draft. 6. The aforesaid dishonest receipt and fraudulent encashment of the DD bearing No. OL/AH 292236 amounting to Rs. 90,000/-by accused Gurcharanjit, Om Prakash and Hira Singh constituted the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468 and 471 IPC. There is sufficient oral and documentary evidence available on record to prosecute the aforesaid accused in the court of law. 7. On the basis of the allegations and materials as above in the supplementary charge-sheet cognizance of offence was taken and thereafter the petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 239 of the Code for discharging him. But the learned Magistrate vide his impugned order refused the petitioners prayer. 8. During hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has not discussed the materials in detail to show that there are reasonable ground for presuming that the petitioner has committed offence alleged. But the learned Magistrate vide his impugned order refused the petitioners prayer. 8. During hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate has not discussed the materials in detail to show that there are reasonable ground for presuming that the petitioner has committed offence alleged. It is not denied that the said DD was forged one. It is also not denied that the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s Regency Enterprises showed the deposit of the draft in his cash credit account maintained in the Bank and on the basis of that DD payment of Rs. 90,000/- was obtained from the Bank. But the plea of the petitioner is that he had received the draft as the price for the liquor sold by him in usual course of business and he had deposited the same in cash credit account and obtained the payment. Further plea of the petitioner is that he is not associated with the forged draft. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I, referring the materials in the charge-sheet submitted that the petitioner had obtained the payment of forged draft. He further submitted that the petitioners plea is that he obtained payment for the sale of liquor but the investigation made through the Excise Department revealed that, in fact, any sale of liquor had not been made against the draft. It was also submitted that the petitioner is the person who, in fact, received the payment on the forged draft. So he is primely responsible for it. Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI continued to submit that it is defence of the petitioner that he had received the draft against the sale of liquor but this fact has also been found false during investigation and it can be decided during the trial only on the basis of material collected by Bank/Investigating Agency. 10. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that in this case the trial has already proceeded and several witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and many documents have been exhibited and proved by the prosecution during trial. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order the learned Magistrate has not mentioned the detailed ground on the basis of which he refused the prayer for framing charge. 12. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order the learned Magistrate has not mentioned the detailed ground on the basis of which he refused the prayer for framing charge. 12. In this context the learned Standing Counsel cited 2000 1 SCC 722 Kanti Bhadra Sah and Another V/s. State of West Bengal wherein it was held that under Sec. 239 of the Code no reasons are to be recorded when charges are to be framed against the accused and that reasons are to be recorded only when the accused is to be discharged. However, in that case the Apex Court examined the materials against the accused and came to the finding that on the basis of the materials there was no ground for presuming that the deceased had committed the offence. 13. No doubt, the learned Magistrate does not mention in detail the ground on which he presumed that the accused had committed the offence but the materials are here before this Court in the shape of detailed materials, as mentioned in the charge-sheet. While considering the merits of the impugned order that with a view to finding out whether there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence I feel that this Court is quite competent to consider the matter on the ground of materials before this Court. The materials in the charge-sheet are quite enough to raise strong suspicion leading to presumption that the accused has committed the offence and in such view of the matters, I feel that the charge has been rightly framed and the learned Magistrate has rightly refused the prayer of discharge. 14. The petitioner had filed a petition dated 5th April, 2005 for calling for original documents under Annexure-3 to the petition. Annexure-13 mentions 27 types of documents, records of concerned banks, records of Excise Department and the seized records relating to petitioners business transaction. Vide supplementary affidavit, dated 7th May, 2007 the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I, replied that those documents have already exhibited in the trial court and it is in the custody of the trial court. Annexure-13 mentions 27 types of documents, records of concerned banks, records of Excise Department and the seized records relating to petitioners business transaction. Vide supplementary affidavit, dated 7th May, 2007 the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I, replied that those documents have already exhibited in the trial court and it is in the custody of the trial court. By filing petition dated 5th April, 2005 the petitioner sought to call for several document with a view to pointing out and asking before this Court to examine in detail, the materials with a view to finding out whether the accused has committed the offence or not. Those documents have already been produced before the trial court during the trial. Here I feel that at this stage the court is only required to see whether the materials on the record are suffic888888888888ient to indicate a prima facie case and whether there are grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or not. 15. On considering the materials pro­duced, I feel that the materials are suffi­cient to indicate a prima facie case and it raises a strong suspicion leading to pre­suming that the accused has committed the offence. At this stage it is not necessary to call for the documents with a view to examine the same in order to find out a final decision over the commission of the offence or not. Therefore, the prayer for calling for the documents has not been felt necessary. 16. Thus hearing both sides and con­sidering as above I find no merit in the prayer, hence, this petition is dismissed.