BANSHILAL KUMAWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Kanti Bhadra Singh and Anr. v. State of West Bengal, 2000 CrLJ 746, it was held that there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order showing the reasons for framing of charge. It was held that "Already burdened trial court should not be further burdened with such an extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the Court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write a detailed order at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. Detailed orders need not be written at the stage of framing of charge itself is prima facie and order that the trial judge has formed the opinion, upon considering the police report and other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned. Magistrate is required to record his reasons for discharging the accused but there is no such requirement if he frames charges."

(2.) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanti Badhra Shah's case further observed that" in the present case as Metropolitan Magistrate has chosen to frame the charge, the High Court, when moved by the accused for quashment of the charge, could have re-examined the records to consider whether the charge framed was sustainable or not. If the High Court decides to quash the charge it is open to the High Court to record the reasons thereof. Impugned order of the High Court is one of setting aside the charge without stating any reason. But the direction to the Magistrate to consider the materials once again and then to frame a charge for the same offence (if the Magistrate reaches the opinion that there is ground for presuming the commission of offence) is simply to repeat what the Metropolitan Magistrate had done once at the first instance. To ask him to do the same thing over- again is adding an unnecessary extra work on the trial court. Be that as it may, the State has not challenged the order of the High Court, Hence, we are not in a position to set aside the impugned order of the High Court. We leave the order as such by making the aforestated observations. We leave it to the Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise his functions under Section 239 or 240 of the Code as he deems fit in the light of the observations made above."

(3.) Ruling of Kanti Bhadra Shah perfectly applies to the present bunch of three revision petitions. In all the three matters Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Cases), Chittorgarh, had passed an order to frame the charge against accused Banshilal Kumawat under different Sections of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. In all the three matters, accused had moved revision petitions earlier also before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and his Cr. Revision Petitions No. 740/2012, 739/2013 and 738/2012 had been decided by this Court respectively by orders dated 8.1.2013, 12.12.2012 and 8.1.2013. The three revisions had been allowed by this Court and the impugned orders were quashed qua the petitioner and the trial court was directed to pass a fresh order on the question of charges qua the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.