JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 14.12.1999 passed by Sri A.K. Shrivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Tr. No. 482 of 1999 arising out of Bettiah P.S. Case No. 12 of 1990. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his discharge. 2. Short fact of the case is that the petitioner was posted as Company Commander, Bihar Homeguard Department and he had taken an advance of Rs. 42,270/- for its distribution amongst the Home Guard Jawans on 11.10.1988. After receiving the said amount, the petitioner disappeared for a long period and, thereafter, first information report was lodged on 12.1.1990 vide Bettiah P.S. Case No. 12 of 1990 for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that the petitioner has misappropriated the government fund. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet and when the case reached to the stage of charge a petition was filed by the petitioner for his discharge and the same has been rejected by the learned Magistrate by its order dated 14.12.1999. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of discharge petition, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition and the same was admitted on 14.3.2000. While admitting the petition, it was directed that pending disposal, further proceeding in Tr. Case No. 482 of 1999 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bettiah shall remain stayed and order of stay is still continuing. 4. Mr. Pramod Manbansh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, submits that the learned Magistrate without assigning any reason has passed the impugned order. It was submitted that there was no material on record for proceeding with the case, even then the learned Magistrate without applying its mind in a mechanical manner has rejected the discharge petition by its order dated 14.12.199. It was submitted that there was no material on record for proceeding with the case, even then the learned Magistrate without applying its mind in a mechanical manner has rejected the discharge petition by its order dated 14.12.199. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to annexure-4 to the petition, which is a typed copy of letter contained in memo no.209 dated 17.3.1997 issued from the office of Collector, and submitted that the entire amount was paid on District Magistrate, West Champrant, Bettiah whereby he had requested for withdrawal of the prosecution. Learned Counsel has also referred to photo copy of Acquitance Roll which has been marked as annexure-2 to the petition with a view to impress upon the court that payment was made to the persons concerned. According to the learned Counsel, no case is made out for proceeding against the petitioner. 5. While challenging the order of rejection of discharge petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 564 (Dilawar Balu Kurane V/s. State of Maharashtra) and A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 545 (Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V/s. (State of Maharashtra). He submits that even Honble the Supreme Court has held that at the time of framing of charge, the concerned court is required to examine the materials on record. It was submitted that several documents were produced by the petitioner, but the learned Magistrate ignoring all those documents has passed the impugned order. 6. Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that even in the first information report there is specific averment that advance of the said amount for its distribution amongst Home Guard Jawans was taken by this petitioner in the month of October, 1988 and, thereafter, he disappeared and till the date of registration of first information report i.e. 12.1.1990 the said amount was not paid either to the Jawans or refunded to the government exchequer. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of prayer of the petitioner. 7. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on the record. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of prayer of the petitioner. 7. Besides hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the materials available on the record. Perusal of the impugned order i.e. order dated 14.12.1999 makes it clear that while passing the order the learned Magistrate had examined the materials available on the record and was not satisfied that the case was groundless and, thereafter, he had rejected the discharge petition. Prima facie, there is no defect in the order. It need not to be elaborated that if the court is satisfied that prosecution is groundless, then after recording reasons he can discharge the accused; but for the purpose of rejection of the discharge petition, "there is non statutory obligation on the court concerned to assign reason. In the present case, the learned Magistrate had examined the materials on the record and had briefly assigned reason for rejection of the discharge petition. So far as annexure-5, a letter of Assistant Public Prosecutor, is concerned, this Court is of the view that it was only a communication in between the client and the Advocate and this Court is not required to take notice of such document. Moreover, in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure all the documents are not required to be looked into unless those documents are either a public document or it has got proved in accordance with law. In view of facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied that, while rejecting the discharge petition, the learned Magistrate has committed no error. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition stands rejected. 9. In view of rejection of the present case, interim order of stay dated 14.3.2000 stands automatically vacated. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forth with.