NATHMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 27-3-1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby he framed charge under Sec. 3/7 Essential Commodities Act against the accused-applicant, The learned counsel submits that at the relevant time he was having a licence but the same was not renewed. He further submits that in view of the Government notification issued on 16-6-1981 charge could not have been framed against the petitioner. He further submits that the learned Sessions Judge did not pass a speaking order and a look at the order shows that before passing the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has not applied his mind on the material available before him because he failed to assign reasons as to why and on what basis the charges have been framed against the accused-petitioner.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in case the Court feels that the order is not a speaking one then a direction may be issued to the learned Sessions Judge to pass a speaking order on the material available on the record.

(3.) I have considered points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 27-3-1490, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not a speaking one and the learned Sessions Judge failed to give any reason as to why and on what basis, the charges have been framed against the accused-applicant. In these circumstances the matter requires further consideration.