B.R. Arora, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated August 1, 1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Balotra, by which the learned Sessions Judge framed charges Under Section 307, I.P.C. and Section 51(2) of the Rajasthan Forest Act against the petitioner.
(2.) A complaint was lodged on December 29, 1989, against the petitioner at Police Station Sindri, by one Khinv Singh and on the basis of this report, a case Under Sections 307, 353 and 332/34, I.P.C. and Section 42/77 of the Forest Act was registered. The police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan against the petitioners Under Sections 307, 353 and 332/34, I.P.C. and Section 42/77 of the Forest Act, in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Balotra, who committed the accused to stand trial in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra. The learned Sessions Judge, by his order dated August 1, 1990, framed the charges Under Section 307, I.P.C. and Section 51(2) of the Rajasthan Forest Act against the petitioners. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order passed by the learned Session Judge as well as the record of the case. The order passed by the learned lower Court is not a speaking order and the evidence, on the basis of which the learned lower Court framed the charges has, also, not been discussed. The order framing the charge must disclose to some extent that the Court has applied its mind to the evidence of the witnesses and the documents collected by the investigating agency. The order must show what evidence prevailed over the trial Court for framing the charges against the accused. Though it is not necessary that at the time of framing the charges, the learned trial Court should pass a detailed order, but it must disclose the facts, on the basis of which the learned lower Court framed the charges so that it may enable the revisional Court to judge the correctness of the order passed by the learned lower Court As the order passed by the learned lower Court is not speaking order and does not show the application of mind by the learned trial Court, it, therefore, deserves to be set -aside. It may, however, be mentioned that the learned lower Court has framed the charges Under Section 307, I.P.C. against both the accused -persons while it can only be one person who was driving the vehicle at that time. Even as per the evidence of the prosecution, both the accused -petitioners were not driving the vehicle. All these facts show that the learned lower Court, while framing the charges, has not applied its mind. The order dated August 1, 1990 therefore deserves to be set -aside.
(3.) IN the result, the miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The order dated August 1, 1990, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra, framing the charges against the petitioners is set -aside and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to pass an appropriate order and frame the charge in accordance with law.;