- (1.) K. L. Sharma, J. Heard the learned counsel tot revisionist and the learned A. G. A.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the order of framing of charge dated 17-8-1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in S. T. No. 89 of 1991. The learned counsel for revisionist has contended that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not speaking one inasmuch as cause of death reported in post-mortem report has not been taken into consideration. In my opinion the order framing the charge against the revisionists is a speak ing one. It is true that detailed order has not been passed by the learned Session Judge considering every piece of material brought on record but he has come to a definite opinion that a case is made out for framing a charge under Section 302, I. P. C. also. He has not referred to the post-mortem report and cause of death but that does not mean that by omission to discuss the medical evidence he has committed any illegality. Even I do not consider it proper to discuss this contention of learned counsel whether the post-mortem report and cause of death mentioned therein would be enough to disprove the prosecution case and entitle the revisionists to be discharged for the offence under S. 302, IPC. If I do so it is likely to prejudice the defence. Had the learned Session Judge come to the conclusion that no ground is made out for framing the charge or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused for the charge under Section 302, I. P. C. ho would have been required to record his reasons for discharging the accused but when he has come to the opinion on perusal of material on record that there is ground of presuming that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. also it was not necessary to record detailed reason for doing so. I, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision having no merit is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. Revision dismissed. .;