Judgment :- The petitioners counsel submits that the petitioner has filed the Criminal Original Petition No.33408 of 2005 to direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate to entertain the discharge petition in D.No.1404 in C.C.No.37 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore on 211. 2005. 2. The petitioners case is that the respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has initiated prosecution by filing a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.37 of 2005, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as the 6th accused along with five other accused, for the alleged offence under Sections 50, 76(1), 132, 135, 135(A) of Customs Act r/w. Section 11 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, for misdeclaration and false declaration. 3. The petitioners counsel further alleged that the petitioner along with the other five accused filed petition under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C to discharge them from the said proceedings. Further, the petitioner alleged that the learned Magistrate failed to consider the discharge petition filed on 211. 2005 by the petitioner and the other accused. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that the discharge petition filed by the accused (six in number) including the petitioner herein was returned by the lower court for the reason that correct provision of law is not furnished and notice was not given to the public prosecutor. After returning this discharge petition, the lower court has framed charges against the accused and proceeded to examine them under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the evidence already recorded in the case C.C.No.37 of 2005. The grievance of the petitioner herein who is the sixth accused before the trial court is that the trial court grossly failed to consider the discharge petition filed by the accused, that the lower court wilfully and wantonly framed the charges against the accused on the same day when the petition for discharge was filed by the accused and that the proceedings before the Magistrate was not ripe for questioning the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and that the reasons stated for the return of the discharge petition are incorrect and the same will not vitiate the very object of discharge petition as the Magistrate can mould the relief prayed for by the accused in the discharge petition. 4. 4. The reason for returning the discharge petition that notice was not given to the public prosecutor is not a grave mistake warranting return of the petition and the return of the discharge petition amounts to denying the rights of the accused. 5. Hence, the petitioner prays that this Court may direct the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore to entertain the discharge petition filed in D.No.1404 on 211. 2005 in C.C.No.37 of 2005 and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 6. On the averments contained in the discharge petition, I have heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the first accused in C.C.No.37 of 2005, who has promoted M/s. C.S. Textiles in the benami name of P. Chandrasekaran only with the avowed object of making the fraudulent export to get drawback benefits. The first accused has misdeclared the goods namely 36,000 numbers of ordinary banians as T-shirts and over valued at Rs.1,15,02540 in the export documents viz., shipping bill Nos. 198, 199 and 200, all dated 15.07.2003 and invoice Nos. CS/37, CS/38 and CS/39 all dated 10.07.2003 respectively in order to avail higher ineligible drawback incentive to the tune of Rs.11,50,254/-. The petitioner, V. S. Stalin in his statement dated 07.08.2003 itself, admitted that the invoices supplied by him to M/s. C.S. Textiles were dummy invoices for which no goods were supplied, in order to get the accused escape from the clutches of law, though they committed a major offence. Further, the examination of four witnesses clearly established the intention to defraud the government by inflating the price of the vests as T-shirts and claiming higher drawback benefits. Further, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the cross-examination of witnesses had clearly showed that there is a prima facie case of fraudulent availment of drawback benefits which is not actually due to him. Hence, the charge of the accused against the Honourable Chief Judicial Magistrate ie. "he hastily dictated" is baseless and contrary to the facts. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent argued the matter. The learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that the accused was involved in five similar offences. Further, the prosecution side mentioned that nine witnesses and 52 documents are mentioned in support of the case. 8. "he hastily dictated" is baseless and contrary to the facts. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent argued the matter. The learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that the accused was involved in five similar offences. Further, the prosecution side mentioned that nine witnesses and 52 documents are mentioned in support of the case. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the order passed in D.No.1404 in C.C.No.37 of 2005 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, the Court is of the view that the prosecution case has to be tried necessarily. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is not maintainable and hence is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.