KESAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the accused Nos. 2 to 6 in C.C.635/99 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad praying

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that it is not necessary that a considered order has to be made by the learned Magistrate when proceeding to frame charge against the accused in a crime. In support of the said submission, the counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Wati (Smt.) and another v. State and others ( 2001 (4) SCC 333 ). In that decision the Supreme Court held that no reasons are required to be recorded when charges are framed against the accused persons. S.227 of the Cr.P.C. says that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing, The above section says that reasons have to be stated when the court takes a decision to discharge the accused. S.228 of the Code says about framing of charge in a sessions case and that section does not say that reasons have to be stated when framing charge. In S.239 Cr.P.C. it is stated that when the magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. S.240 deals with framing of charge in warrant cases and in that Section no mention is made that when the court proceeds to frame charge, reasons will have to be stated. In S.239 it is stated that when an accused is discharged, reasons have to be stated. In the light of what is stated in S.240 it has to be said that when the court takes, a decision for framing charge, the reasons need not be stated.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cited the decision R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State ( 1996 (1) CriLJ 757 ) in which in Para.8, this court said that when the accused files petition under S.239 of the Cr. P. C. and chose to advance arguments seeking their discharge, the Trial Court was left with no other alternative except to pass an order Considering the contentions raised by the respective accused. On pointing Out the above observations in the above judgment of this court, it is maintained that since there is a direction by this court that the petitioner could raise his contentions in the Trial Court at the time of framing charge, the learned Magistrate ought to have made a considered order even though the decision taken was for framing charge. Such an observation was made by this court on interpreting S.239 Cr.P.C. It is seen that the court did not make reference to 240 Cr.P.C. and that provision has not been taken into Consideration along with S.239 Cr. P. C.; in the light of the observation made by the Supreme Court in the decision in Om Wati and another v. State and others (2001(4) SCC 333) that at the time of framing charge, the court need not record reasons, it cannot be said that the court is bound to make a considered order when taking a decision for framing charge.