ORDER : Challenging the order of framing of charges passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai in E.O.C.C.No.27 of 1996 dated 19.04.2017, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: E.O.C.C.No.27 of 1996 came to be filed against the petitioner for contravention of certain provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (herein after referred to as FERA, 1973). Earlier the petitioner was discharged from the case on 18.05.2015 and on revision, the order of discharge was set aside by this Court on 01.02.2017 in Crl.R.C.No.937 of 2015. Thereafter, fresh summons were issued to the petitioner on 22.02.2017. On 10.04.2017, the arguments relating to framing of charges commenced by the department and on 19.04.2017, an order of framing of charges came to be passed. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. I have heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and perused the records filed before this Court. 4. Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's arguments relating to framing of charges is a valuable right and denial of opportunity to put forth his arguments was violative of the principles of natural justice. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was only a day's time which they sought for on the ground that their petition before the High Court to recall the order dated 01.02.2017 which was listed on that day and was yet to be taken up for hearing and hence the adjournment was sought for. 5. On the other hand, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned ASGI vehemently opposed the petition and stated that the petitioner had been protracting the proceedings from 1996 onwards and if any indulgence shown to the petitioner at this stage by permitting him to put forth his arguments on the charges framed would amount to violation of this Court's order dated 01.02.2017 passed in Crl.R.C.No.937 of 2015. He would further submit that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by the learned Magistrate for arguments which he did not avail of and hence the present petition deserves to be dismissed. He also submitted that in view of this Court's order dated 01.02.2017, this Court cannot exercise its discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. He would further submit that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity by the learned Magistrate for arguments which he did not avail of and hence the present petition deserves to be dismissed. He also submitted that in view of this Court's order dated 01.02.2017, this Court cannot exercise its discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the delay in the proceedings from 1996 onwards was also attributable to the prosecution since between the period from 12.08.1996 when the chief examination commenced and till 12.04.2017, the prosecution has examined only seven witnesses and hence submitted that the delay cannot be attributed on the petitioner. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsels on either side. 8. On a perusal of the adjudication, it is seen that the learned Magistrate has posted the case for adjournment from 27.03.2017, 28.03.2017, 04.04.2017, and 05.04.2017. On 10.04.2017, the prosecution had submitted their arguments and the learned Magistrate adjourned the matter to 13.04.2017 for the reply arguments of the petitioner herein. Framing of charges is an important event in the trial of warrant cases. It can be seen that in the present incident, the petitioner had sought for only a day's time for advancing his arguments with regard to framing of charges but the same was denied and the charges were framed on 19.04.2017. The prosecution had put forth their arguments only on 10.04.2017 and on the next hearing date (i.e.,) on 13.04.2017, the learned Magistrate had rejected the petitioner's request for adjournment and expressed his opinion that a prima-facie case was made out for framing charges. In my considered view, one day adjournment could not have caused grave miscarriage of justice but on the other hand, would have extended an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is needless to mention that no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the petitioner was permitted to put forth his argument within a stipulated time limit of one day alone. 9. The objections raised by the learned ASGI appearing for the respondent that the petitioner has been protracting the proceedings from 1996 onwards is not substantiated by any documents. 9. The objections raised by the learned ASGI appearing for the respondent that the petitioner has been protracting the proceedings from 1996 onwards is not substantiated by any documents. It is also seen that when the proceedings were pending, the petitioner herein was earlier discharged and by an order dated 01.02.2017 in Crl.R.C.No.937 of 2015, this Court had set aside the order of discharge and there was some time consumed therein. When the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner made the statement that the prosecution had examined only seven witnesses till 12.04.2017, the same was not controverted by the learned ASGI. It is no doubt that if the proceedings are being unwarrantedly protracted and the delay is not attributed to the prosecution, such delay is liable to be condemned. In the present case on hand, since the prosecution has also contributed to the delay in examining only seven witnesses till 12.04.2017 and also since there was some time consumed between the petitioner's discharge and the subsequent order setting aside the discharge, the learned ASGI's submission of attributing the delay on the petitioner is unfounded. 10. The learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that if any further opportunity is given to the petitioner, the same would violate this Court's earlier order dated 01.02.2017. I do not think that such a submission can be sustained since the order goes to read that there were certain materials available on record to make out a prima facie case for framing charges under Section 8(1) and 9(1)(a) of the FERA, 1973 and in the absence of any specific observations in this Court's earlier order dated 01.02.2017 barring the petitioner from putting forth his arguments, it cannot be construed to be violative of this Court's order. 11. The other ground raised by the learned ASGI that this Court cannot exercise its inherent power in view of this Court's order dated 01.02.2017, is neither substantiated by a legal precedent nor through the facts of the case. This Court's earlier order in the Criminal revision referred to above, neither explicitly nor implicitly, bar the petitioner from putting forth his arguments. While that being so, this Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can extend its discretion by granting an opportunity to the petitioner in order to secure the ends of justice. 12. This Court's earlier order in the Criminal revision referred to above, neither explicitly nor implicitly, bar the petitioner from putting forth his arguments. While that being so, this Court exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can extend its discretion by granting an opportunity to the petitioner in order to secure the ends of justice. 12. I am conscious of the fact that by this order, the petitioner should not take advantage and protract the proceedings. Likewise by rejecting this petition, I am of the considered view that it would amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity of argument since framing of charges is an important event in the trial of warrant cases. In order to strike the balance between the prosecution's objections and the petitioner's request, it would be appropriate to direct the Court below to grant one day time for the petitioner to put forth his arguments with regard to framing of charges. 13. In the result, the charges framed on 19.04.2017 in E.O.C.C.No.27 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to put forth his arguments on the charges framed in the said case. Such an exercise shall be completed within one working day and such date shall be fixed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai on or before 31.07.2017. It is made clear that I have not expressed any of my views with regard to the merits of the petitioner's case and it is open to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai to frame charges against the petitioner, if such arguments are not advanced on the stipulated date. 14. In the instant case, though I have not attributed the delay either on the prosecution or on the petitioner, the fact remains that the proceedings had been dragged on for an unreasonable long period. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are of serious in nature and in order to secure the ends of justice, a speedy trial is undoubtedly warranted in the present case. In view of the same, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai is directed to conclude the main proceedings, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and if need be, on day-to-day basis. In view of the same, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai is directed to conclude the main proceedings, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and if need be, on day-to-day basis. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai shall endeavor to complete the proceedings within the time limit prescribed herein. 15. With the above observations and direction, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.