IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34752 of 2010 RAGHUNATH YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 2.11.2010 No one appears in spite of calls. The order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, who refused to pass an order on the application filed by the petitioner, who was an accused in the court below, submitting therethrough that accusation may not be explained to him under the facts of the case, is impugned in the present petition. The learned trial court has mentioned in its order that the provisions contained in Section 245 Cr. P.C. were not applicable to the case which was under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It was further observed by the learned court below that the case was pending for prosecution evidence. There is no reason not to accept the record of the learned trial court that the case was fixed for evidence as the above record must not have been made against the actual state of affairs prevailing in the court below. If the case was fixed for evidence, then, it is indicated that the stage of Section 251 had already passed of and, as such, there could not be any reason to maintain such a petition as filed by the petitioner. For the above noted reason, the Court finds no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)