JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.8.1998 passed by Sri V. C. Choudhary, Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in DNR 89 of 1997/g. R. No.304 of 1987. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge petition filed under Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge. It was alleged that accused persons had committed offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that an F. I. R. on the basis of a written report of one Sri Ishwar goyal for Ambuja Flour Mills Ltd. was registered vide Danapur P. S. Case No.89 of 1997 for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the indian Penal Code. It was alleged that through a transporter, he was sending about 101 bags of starch (Maida) amounting to Rs.84,000/- to M/s Ashok Industry, 51-Basant Lal Sah Road, Tollyganj, Calcutta. It was alleged that driver of the truck, who was sent by the transporter lifted the aforesaid bags of starch, but instead of delivering the same to the consignee, he sold the same in the market. The transporter had also supported the informant and he disclosed the name of driver as well as owner of the truck in question. After registering the F. I. R. , police investigated the same and thereafter, charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner, driver and other accused persons, who had purchased the stolen goods. After submission of charge sheet, cognizance was taken. Subsequently, a petition under Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of this petitioner for his discharge. Petitioner had claimed that he was only owner of the truck in question. However, the discharge petition was rejected and on the same date i. e. on 13.8.1998, charges were framed under Sections 402 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have examined the materials available on record including the order rejecting the discharge petition and framing of the charge dated 13.8.1998. I do not find any error in the impugned order. 3. I have examined the materials available on record including the order rejecting the discharge petition and framing of the charge dated 13.8.1998. I do not find any error in the impugned order. On perusal of the petition as well as examining the record of the case, I am of the view that petitioner has not make out an exceptional case warranting this Court to exercise power under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this petition and petition stands rejected. 5. While admitting the present case, by order dated 8.3.2000, this Court had directed that further proceeding, in respect of this petitioner, in Danapur P. S. Case No.89/97, pending in the court of Sri V. C. Choudhary, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur, shall remain stayed. 6. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay dated 8.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. 7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith.