IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2059 of 2008() ------------------------- SC.467/2003 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.M.SEBASTIAN @ DEVASSIA, AGED 62, S/O.LATE MATHAI, KULAMANTHATTEL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT KILIYANTHRA P.O., MUDA ILANJI, AYYANKUNNU VILLAGE, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CBCID, KANNUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2059 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 27.3.1994. The crime was registered and after completing the investigation final report was filed and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate. After committal, the case has been registered as S.C. 467 of 2003. The case stands posted for trial to 2.6.2008. 2. It is at this stage that the petitioner has come before this Court with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. 3. What is the reason? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he had filed an application for claiming discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the said application was not considered in detail and no reasoned order Crl.M.C.No. 2059 of 2008 2 was passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The charge framed on 4.10.2007 does not precede any reasoned decision under section 228 Cr.P.C. holding that there is sufficient grounds to frame charges against the petitioner. 4. There is, of course, a further contention that at any rate the petitioner may be granted a short further time to get ready for trial. I must say that the contentions do not appeal to me at all. At the very outset it must be noted that the Sessions Judge has no obligation to pass a reasoned order if he chooses to frame charges under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The language of Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. make it clear that the Sessions Judge is obliged to give a reasoned order only when he chooses to prematurely terminate the proceedings by invoking the powers under Section 227 Cr.P.C. When the decision is to frame a charge and proceed further, the learned Judge is not obliged under law to give a detailed order giving reasons. 5. The fact that the petitioner has filed an application claiming discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. cannot also alter the position. No such application from any accused is necessary at all. Even without Crl.M.C.No. 2059 of 2008 3 such application the Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused are entitled to be heard and the Sessions Judge is bound to apply his mind and take a decision as to whether charges deserve to be framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C. or the accused deserves to be discharged under Section 227 Cr.P.C. I repeat that if the decision is in favour of discharge, a reasoned order is bound to be passed, whereas if the decision is to frame charge, no reasoned order is necessary. The mere fact that the petitioner had chosen to file an application to remind the learned Sessions Judge of his duty to apply his mind under Section 227/228 Cr.P.C. cannot alter the legal position nor shall it saddle the Sessions Judge with any additional responsibility to give reasons for the order for framing charge. 6. I further note that the impugned order is a revisable order. It is by now trite that an order framing charge is a revisable order and not an interlocutory order. In these circumstances on the question of maintainability also, this petition has to fail. 7. The last request of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not also carry conviction at all. The alleged incident took place in Crl.M.C.No. 2059 of 2008 4 1994. The Sessions Case was registered in 2003. Charges were framed on 4.10.2007. There is no dispute that the case has been listed for trial sufficiently early. In these circumstances the course adopted by the petitioner of rushing to this Court on the eve of the date fixed for trial with a prayer to adjourn the proceedings cannot obviously be accepted. There were times when asking for adjournment in a listed trial in a sessions case was considered to be blasphemous. But things appear to be changing in these days. In a trial listed before the Sessions Court adjournment should be sought and granted only if exceptional and convincing reasons are there. I do not find any such reasons in this case. 8. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm