AJAY MALIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On March 21, 1995 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate heard arguments on the question of framing of charge and after having set over the matter for as many as ten days, passed the following order:

(2.) The learned counsel for the State, however, finds nothing wrong with the impugned order. According to him the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was neither required to give any reasons in support of his order nor was he required to deal with the submissions made. by the accused. In support, reliance is placed on two judgments-one coming from the Kerala High Court in Jayaprakash v. State 1981 Cri. LJ 460(1) and the other from Karnataka High Court reported as Mahantaswamy v. State of Kamataka 1987 Cri. L.T 497(2).

(3.) In Jayaprakash v. State (supra), the learned single Judge making a distinction between sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure observed that whereas under section 227 while discharging the accused it Is incumbent on the court to record reasons for so doing, section 228 does not in terms direct that the court should pas? a formal order giving its reasons for the framing of the charge. It was observed: