“11. Thus, the bare perusal of Section 227-228, 239-240 and 244-245 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the scope of jurisdiction to be exercised in all the three cases is entirely different. The degree of satisfaction to be required in the “cases instituted otherwise than on the police report” is much higher than the warrant cases on police report or the Session triable cases. The procedure to be adopted in such cases has been lucidly explained by the Supreme Court in Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs. Sttate of Jharkhand & Anr., 2009 (14) SCC 115 wherein it was inter alia held that the essential difference of procedure in the trial of warrant case on the basis of a police report and that instituted otherwise than on the police report, is particularly marked in Sections 238 and 239 Cr.P.C. on one side and Sections 244 and 245 Cr.P.C., on the other. It was further inter alia held that in a warrant trial instituted otherwise than on a police report, when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate under Section 244(1) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate has to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence, as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and it is after all this, evidence is taken, then the Magistrate has to consider under Section 245(1) Cr.Р.С., whether any case against the accused is made out, which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, and if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that there is no such case made out against the accused, the Magistrate proceeds to discharge him, on the other hand, if he is satisfied about the prima facie case against the accused, the Magistrate would frame a charge under Section 246(1) Cr.P.C.
