V.M. Jain, J.
1. This is a criminal revision under Section 401, Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 25-10-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge while ordering the framing of charges under Section 304B, 201, 34, I.P.C. against the accused petitioners.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record carefully.
3. Order dated 25-10-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge reads as under :-
Heard. Documents perused. From the
documents and material placed on the file, a
prima facie case under Section 304B, 201,
34, I.P.C. is made out against the accused.
Accordingly, a charge has been framed
against the accused to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial.
PWs be summoned on 11-1-2000.
Addl. Sessions Judge
4. In the revision petition, it was alleged that even though arguments were raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that no case under Section 304B, I.P.C. was made out against the accused because the ingredients of Section 304B, I.P.C. were missing, yet the learned Additional Sessions Judge had ordered the framing of charge under Section 304B, I.P.C. It was alleged that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordering the framing of charge does not show any application of judicial mind. During the course of arguments as well it was submitted before me that detailed arguments were addressed before the Additional Sessions Judge on the question of charge. Accordingly, the petitioner was given time to file an affidavit of the counsel that detailed arguments were addressed before the Additional Sessions Judge on the question of charge. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an affidavit of his counsel in the trial Court. In the said affidavit, it was stated by Mr. A.S. Sarao, Advocate, Sangrur, that it was argued before the trial Court that the offence does not fall within the provisions of Section 304B, I.P.C. on the ground that marriage was not solemnised within seven years of death of deceased. It was further alleged in the said affidavit that it was also argued before the trial Court that soon before her death the deceased was not subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused petitioners in connection with any demand of dowry. After the filing of the said affidavit, when the matter again came up for hearing before me, 1 was of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice if a report is called from the Additional Sessions Judge (Shri J.P. Mehmi) with regard to the affidavit submitted by Mr. A.S. Sarao, Advocate, in which he had stated that in fact, he had argued before the trial Court that no offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. was made out. It was directed that a copy of the affidavit be sent to Shri J.P. Mehmi, Addl. Sessions Judge and his report be obtained in this regard. Thereafter, Shri J.P. Mehmi sent his report dated 8-7-2000, in which it was stated by him that Shri A.S. Sarao, Advocate had not raised any arguments at the time of framing of the charge that no offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. was made out against the accused, even though at the time when the bail application was argued and decided on 25-10-1999, Shri A.S. Sarao had argued that no offence under Section 304B, I.P.C. was made out. However, vide detailed order bail application was dismissed. It was further submitted by Sh. J.P. Mehmi, Additional Sessions Judge that if Shri A.S. Sarao had advanced the arguments before him on this point at the time of framing of charge, he would have recorded his arguments in the order framing the charge against the accused.
5. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 25-10-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, ordering the framing of charges under Sections 304B, 201 and 34, I.P.C.
6. As referred to above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his report had categorically stated that no argument was raised by the learned counsel with regard to the framing of charge. In 2000 (1) All Instant Judgments (SC) 118 : (2000 Cri LJ 746) Kanti Bhadra Shah v. The State of West Bengal, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under (at. page 748) :-
In this context, it is pertinent to point out that 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 of the Code) but if he is to frame the charge, he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why he framed the charge.
7. It was further held in the said authority by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under :-
If there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened trial Courts 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 detailed orders 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…. We can appreciate if such a detailed order has been passed for culminating the proceedings before them. But it is quite unnecessary to write detailed orders at. oilier stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial….
8. In view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the above mentioned authority and in view of the report submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in respect of the affidavit of the counsel for the accused petitioners in the trial Court, in my opinion, I] find no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 25-10-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge while ordering the framing of charges against accused petitioners under Sections 304B/201/34, I.P.C.
9. For the reasons recorded above finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed in [inline.