IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 650 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 651 OF 2010 WITH APPLICATION NO. 77 OF 2010. Situ Shastri & Anr. ..... ..... ...Petitioners. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... ... Respondents. Mr.Suniel Waghmare, Adv. for the petitioners. Ms.V.R.Bhosle APP for the State. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. 11th March, 2010. PC: By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri dated 29.8.2009 thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for discharge of the accused. 2. The complaint has been filed against the applicant-accused for offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said complaint after evidence was led on behalf of the complainant application came to be filed for discharge of the accused. Said application is rejected. The said order of the learned Magistrate was confirmed by Sessions Court. Hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of section 254 of Criminal Procedure Code when an application is 1 made by the accused for discharge, the learned Magistrate is bound to consider the same on merits. He submits that the learned Magistrate and revisional court erred in holding that there is no power in the Court to discharge the accused. Section 254 of Criminal Procedure Code reads thus: “254. Procedure when not convicted .__ (1) If the Magistrate does not convict the accuswed under section 252 or section 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in suport of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence. (2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. (3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application, require that the reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial be deposited in Court. “ 4. Learned counsel places reliance on the words “and also hear the accused”. 5. It is well settled law that particular words in the particular provision cannot be read in isolation and also equally settled law that the provisions of statute have to be read in harmonious manner. For considering the submission of the petitioner it will be necessary to consider Chapter XX of the Criminal Procedure Code which deals with trial of summary cases by a Magistrate. Sections 252 and 253 of said chapter would reveal that they deal with 2 conviction on plea of guilty and conviction in the absence of accused in petty cases. Section 254 provides for what is procedure which is to be followed when the accused is not convicted under sections 252 and 253. The said provision requires that the Magistrate shall proceed to her the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence. It can thus be clearly seen that sub-section (1) of section 254 contemplates evidence to be recorded in support of prosecution case and also evidence to be recorded in support of defence if accused so chooses. Sub-sections (2) and (3) deal with issuance of summons and would not be relevant for considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. After the stage of section 254 the next section 255 requires findings to be recorded either of guilt or acquittal. It is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that section 254 also provides for an application for discharge to be considered. Section 254 prescribes the procedure which is in between the accused not being convicted under section 252 and 253 and section 255 which empowers the Magistrate either to acquit the accused or to hold him guilty. I find that the contention of the petitioner that section 254 also requires an application for discharge to be considered by the Magistrate is without any substance. 7. In the result writ petitions are found without any substance and hence both the writ petitions stand dismissed. 8. In view of disposal of writ petitions criminal application Nos. 76 and 77 of 2010 therein do not survive and same also stand disposed of. 3