- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO.1022/2007 (Ram Singh Vs. The State of Raj. & Anr.) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C. ***** DATE OF ORDER::-05-09-2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr.S.K.Gupta & Ms.Surabhi Gupta,for the petitioner Ms.Nirmla Sharma, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: This revision petition filed under section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order dated 18.4.2007 passed by the Special Judge (ST/SC Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Cum Addl. Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Sessions Case No.9/2007, whereby charge under section 302, 302/149 and 201 I.P.C. has been ordered to be framed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that matter was kept pending under section 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused, but no additional material was collected and charge-sheet was filed. It is also contended that it does not appears from the perusal of the impugned order - 2 - that as to on what reason charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the accused has been framed. It is submitted that the order is non-speaking order. It does not deal with anything except that a charge is required to be framed against the accused under section 302 I.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the order has been passed in a legal manner in a case where allegations are under section 302 I.P.C. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. It is not desirable at this stage to comment upon the material collected during the course of investigation. It is suffice to say that nothing has been stated in the order framing charge against the accused petitioner as to why the charge was to be framed against the accused petitioner. It can be said that the order is non-speaking one. Therefore, I deem it proper while setting aside the impugned order dated 18.4.2007 to remit the matter back to the trial court to hear both sides afresh on charge and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.4.2007 is set aside. The matter is - 3 - remitted back to the trial court to hear both sides afresh on charge and thereafter decide the matter according to law. The petitioner is granted liberty to raise all objections before the trial court. However, the observations made hereinabove shall not affect either of the parties to the litigation. Record of the case be sent forthwith. (S.P.PATHAK) J. BKS/-