KANTI BHADRA SHAH AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

                     KANTI BHADRA SHAH AND A."IR.                                   A
                                          v
                       THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

                                JANUARY 5, 2COO

                [KT. THOMAS A."ID D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]                              B

-         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

          Sectiom~240 and 239--Framing of charge-Legal requirement of pass-
    ing reasoned order by the Magistrate-As per section 239 Magistrate is to        C
    record reasons in case of discharging the accused--Held, if Magistrate is to
    frame the charge there is no legal requirement for him to write an order
    showing reasons for framing a charge against the accused.

          A charge sheet was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate against
    appellants for offences under sections 454 and 380 and 1208 of the Indian       D
    Penal Code. The Magistrate issued process to the accused and after
    bearing framed charges against them. Thereafter, the Magistrate dis-
    missed the petition filed by the appellants for discharging them. Aggrieved
    by the order, appellants filed a petition for quashing the charge before the
    High Court. The High Court quashed the charges framed but directed the          E
    Magistrate to consider again whether the same charges could be framed
    against appellants afresh. Hence, this appeal.

          Dismis~ing the appeal, this Court


          HELD : l.l. Section 239 Cr. P.C. requires a Magistrate to record his      F
    reasons for dbcharging the accused but there is no such requirement if
    the Magistrate forms the opinion that there is ground for presuming that
    the accused had committed the ommce which he is competent to try. In
    such a situation he is only required to frame a charge in writing against
    the accused. (31-D]
                                                                                    G
          1.2. Framing of charge itself is prima facie 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 presum-
    ing that the accused has committed the offence. Therefore, the already
    burdened trial courts should not be further burdened with such an extra         H
                                         27
    28                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2000] 1 S.C.R.

A wor!t. 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
B    further be slowed down. [30-F; 31-H; 32-A]

           1.3. It is clear from Section 245 that in cases instituted otherwise
     than on police report the Magistrate is required to write an order showing
     the reasons only if he is to discharge the accused. 31-E]

C          1.4. In the instant case as the Metropolitan Magistrate has chosen
     to frame the charge, the High Court, when moved by the accused for
     quashing 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. The present order of the High Court is one of setting aside
D    the charge without stating any reason with the direction to the magistrate
     to condsider the materials once again and then to frame a charge for the
     same offence. This is simply to repeat what the Metropolitan Magistrate
     had done once at the first instance and it \l'ould be adding an unnecessary
     extra work on the trial court. However, the respondent has not challenged
E    the order of High Court. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court
     cannot be set-aside and it is left to the Metropolitan Magistrate to exercise
     his functions under Section 239 or 240 of the Code. [32-D-G]

           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDIL!ION: Criminal Appeal No.
     5 of 2000.
F
          From the Judgment and Order dated 5. 7.99 of the Calcutta High
     Court in C.R.R. No. 1041 of 1999.

          S.B. Sanyal, A.P. Srivastava, (Manoj Kr. Mishra) for N.S. Bisht for
     the Appellants.
G·
           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           THOMAS, J. Leave granted.

           Though the appellants succeeded in the High Court their grievance
H still persists as they are not out of woods now. Appdlants approached the
                         K. B. SHAH v. STATE [THOMAS, J.;                      29

     High Court to quash the charge framed again~t tht:m by a Metropolit<!Il         A
     Magistrak. The High Court quashed it, but directed the Magistrate to
     consider again whether the same charges could be framed against appel-
     lants afresh.

           We heard :earned counsd for thL: appellants, but we did not find it
     necessary to hear the sole respondent (State of West Bengal) as this appcal     B
     can be disposed of even without the aid of such arguments.

            On the basis of a complaint lodged with the Police Station, Burra
~/
     Bazar (Calcutta) an investigation was conducted by the police and the
     charge sheet was fikd before the Metropolitan Magistrak, Calcutta,              C
     against appellants and ;ome other persons for offences under Sections 454,
     380 and 120B of the Indian penal Code. The Magistrate issued process to
     the accused and after hearing them a charge was framt:d against them for
     the said offences. While framing the charge the Magistrak had as per
     ordt:r dated 6.3.1999, dismissed the petition filed by the accused for dis-
     charging them. Appellants thereafter moved the High Court for quashing          D
     the charge.

           The Metropolitan Magistrate who framed the charge opted to write
     a short order presumably for dismissing the petition filed by the appellants
     for discharging them. The Magistrate stated in the order thus :                 E
              ''The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the
              four accused persons after completion of the investigation under
              Sections 454, 380, 1208 I.P.C. Hence prima facie the case is
              established against the accused persons under those Sections.
              There is nothing on behalf of the accused persons save and except      F
              a petition:·

            A learned Single Judge of the High Court who set a:.ide the afon:said
      order remarkt:d that it was not discernible from the order of the Magistrate
      that he had taken into consideration the charge-sheet and the other papers     G
      submitted therewith for satisfying himself as to whether there is a prima
     f acie case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. This is
     what the karned Single Judge observed :

               'It is true that the language in which the impugned order is passed
              is not happy one. That I am not sure wht:ther the learned              H
    30                    SUPREME COURT Rf'.PORTS                 (2COOl 1 S.C.R.
A           Magistrate applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the·
            case and took the pain to satisfy himsdf from the materials dis-
            closed by the charge sheet and other papers submitted therewith
            as to whether a prim a f acie case was made out against the ac1;used
            persons for framing charges under the aforesaid penal provisions."

B          After obsr:rving thus learned Singlt: Judge expressed his he!ple~sm:ss
    m supporting the order framing charges against the appellants. The
    \.fetropolitan Magistrate was thereupon directed to peruse the charge-
    sheet along with other papers submitted to him and satisfy himself again         \
    as to the existence of a prim a f acie case against the accused. Tht: fi,rther
C   directions given by the:: learned Single Judge reads thus :


            "If he decides to frame charge upon such satisfaction bast.d on
            perusal of the; charge-sheet and other papers submitted therewith,
            the learned Magistrak must record the fact of such perusal and
D           his satisfaction, only then he shall proceed to frame the charge. If
            on the othc::r hand upon pt:rusal of the aforesaid documents the
             learned Magistrate finds that the papers do not disclose any prima
            f acie case against the petitioner for framing charges, it shull be
             open to him to discharge the petitioners from the case."

E
            We wish to point out that if the trial court decides to frame a charge
    there:: is no legal requirc::ment that he should pass an order specifying the
    reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prim a facie
    order that the trial judge has formed the opinion, upon consideration of
F   the police report and other documents and after hearing both side~, that
    there is ground for presuming that the accustd has committed the offence
    concerned. Chapter XIX deals with provisions for trial of warrant cases
    instituted on police rtport. Section 239 reads thus :


             "239. When accused shall be discharg.:d. - (1) If, upon consid.:ring
G            the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173
             and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the
             Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and
             the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate con-
             siders the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall
H            discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing."
                       K. B. SHAH v. STAT1'. :iHOMAS,J.~                      31
          The said Section shows that the Magistrate is obliged to n:curd his       A
    reasons if he decides to discharge the accused. The next section (Section
    240} reads thus :

            "'240. Framing of charge - (1) If, upon such consideration, examina-
            tion, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is
            ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence          B
            triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to
            try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by
I           him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

            (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused,         C
            and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence
            charged or claims to be tried.''

           It is pertinent to nute that this section required a Magistrate to record
    his reasons for discharging the accused but there is no such requirement if
    he forms the upinion that there is ground for presuming that the accw.ed D
    had committed the offence which he is competent to try. In such a situation
    he is only required to frame a charge in writing against the accused.

            Even in cases instituted otherwise than on police report the
    Magistrate is rtquired to write an order showing the reasons only if ht: is
    to discharge the accusi::d. This is clear from Section 245. As per first        E
    sub- section of Section 245, if a magistrate, after taking all the evidence
    considers that no case against the accused has been made out which if
    unrebutted would warrant his conviction, he shall discharge the accused.
    As per sub-section (2) the Magistrate is t:mpowered to discharge the
    accused at any previous stage of the case if he considers the charge to be      F
    groundless. C nder both sub-sections he is obliged to n:cord his reasons for
    doing so. In this context it is pertinent to point out that even in a trial
    before a court of session, the judge is requin:d to record reasons only if
    he decides to discharge the accused. (vide Section 227 CJf the Code). But
    if he is to frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for     G
    showing why he framed the charge.

          If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an
    order showing the n:asons 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 t!ie the court H
    32                     SUPREME CU CRT RHORTS                   [2000J 1 S.C.R.
A procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing
  avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at difforcnt
  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 are coming across interlocutory orders of Magistrates
B and Sessions Judges running into several. pages. We can appreciate if such
  a detaikd order has been passed for cuhninating the proceedings before
  them. But it is quik unnecessary to write detailed orders at other stages,
  such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of               ,-
  charges, passing over to next stage in the trial. It is a salutary guideline that   \
  when orders rejecting or granting bail are passed, the Court should avoid
C expressing one way or other on contentious issues, except in cases such as
  those falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
  Substances Act, 1985.

         In the present case as the Metropolitan Magistrate has chosen to
D frame the charge, the High Court, when moved by the accused for quash..
  ment 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 tht: charge it is open to the High Court to record the
  reasons thereof. The: present order of tht: High Court is ont: of setting asidt:
  the charge without stating any reason. But tht: direction to the Magistrate
E to consider the materials once again and then to frame a r.:harge 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
F 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 posi.tion to set asi.de the impugned
  order of the High Court. We leave the order as such by making the
  aforestatt:d 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.
G
           The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

    N.J.                                                        Appt:al dismissed.