SHARMA, J. - (1.) "it is necessary for the trial Judge who decides to frame charge after evaluation of material on record, to pass a reasoned order?" This moot question requires consideration in the instant case.
(2.) BENCH of Hon'ble two Judges of the Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah vs. State of West Bengal (1), indicated that if the trial court decides to frame charge, there is no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself, prima facie, shows 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. A Magistrate is required to record his reasons for discharging the accused in view of section 239 Cr. P. C. , but under section 240 Cr. P. C. , there is no such requirement if the Magistrate forms his opinion about framing of charge. Even in a trial before a Court of Session, the Judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to discharge the accused (vide section 227 Cr. P. C. ). But if he is to frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why he framed the charge (section 228 Cr. P. C. ). Learned Senior Counsel, Shri S. R. Bajwa canvassed that before framing charge, the trial Judge, after considering and examining material on record, has to form opinion as to the existence of ground for presuming that the accused has committed offence. By referring dictionary meaning of the words "consider", "opinion" and "ground", learned counsel contended that opinion' is the formal written expression by a court of the reasons and principles of law upon which decision in a case is bared. Therefore, if the trial Judge is of the opinion that charge should be framed, he must assign reasons. In support of his contention, learned counsel invited my attention to the various decisions of the Apex Court. State of Karnataka vs. L. Munnyswamy (2), was the case wherein the Hon'ble three Judge Bench of Hon'ble The Supreme Court indicated thus : " Under Section 227 Cr. P. C. if 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. Recording of reasons is to enable the superior court to examine correctness thereof. Under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if continuing of the same would amount to abuse of the process of court or ends of justice so requires. For the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused, the court possesses, comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such as could reasonably entail conviction. " Bench of Hon'ble two Judges of the Supreme Court in U. O. I. vs. Prafulla Kumar (3), proported thus: " While exercising powers under Sec. 227 Cr. P. C. , the court has undoubted power to sift and weight the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out existence of prima facie case against accused. If two views are equally possible, benefit may be given to the accused even at the stage. Court cannot act merely as a Post-office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution. Court has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced as also basic infirmities appearing in the case. " In Radhey Shyam vs. Kulni Bihari (4), it was held as under: " At the stage of framing charge meticulous consideration of evidence and material is not called for. "
(3.) IN Niranjan Singh Karam Singh vs. Jitendra Bhimraj and Ors. (5), was the case wherein it was observed as under: " At the stage of proceeding under Sec. 227/228 Cr. P. C. , court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record when taken at face value, disclose existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For a limited purpose the court may sift the evidence because even at the initial stage the court cannot accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution says even when it militates against common sense and broad probabilities of the case. " Bench of Hon'ble three Judges of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Somnath Thapa & Ors. (6), indicated as under: " At the stage of framing of charge probative value of materials available on record cannot be gone into. If the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence, it can frame the charge. " Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration (7), was the case wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: " While proceeding under Section 227/228 Cr. P. C. the Sessions Judge is within his powers to consider even those materials which the accused may produce at that stage. Both at the stage under section 239 Cr. P. C. and u/s 227 Cr. P. C. , if the accused succeeds in producing any reliable material which might fatally affect the very sustainability of the case, it would be unjust to suggest that such material shall not be looked into. The word "ground" includes insufficiency of evidence to prove charge. " ;