MALLIKARJUN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused No.4 in Spl. Case No.17/2011, pending in the District and Sessions Court at Chamarajanagar. The prosecution has alleged that the petitioner and other accused have committed offences punishable under Ss.304, 201 read with S.149 of IPC and under Ss.135 and 138 of Indian Electricity Act. Petitioner - accused No.4 filed an application under S.227 Cr.P.C., to discharge him from the case by contending that, the prosecution has not made out any prima facie case to direct him to face trial and that he has been falsely implicated. Said contention was opposed on the ground that the record of the prosecution does indicate that the applicant - accused No.4 has to face trial for the offences alleged against him.

(2.) THOUGH the Trial Court has noted the decisions on which reliance was placed for the accused, without making any reference either to the contents of the complaint or to the panchanama or to the statement of 3 witnesses recorded under S.161 Cr.P.C., it was observed that there is a prima facie case even against accused No.4. By arriving at such a conclusion, the application was dismissed. Assailing the said order, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) SRI Vijayakumar Majage, learned Government Pleader contended that, for framing charge, there is no need to record reasons and the recording of reasons is mandatory only when an accused has to be discharged. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of KANTI BHADRA SHAH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in 2000 CRI. L.J. 746.