Cr. Revision No.1437/2004. 19/9/2011 I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned counsel for the State in this criminal revision which has been filed against the order of the Court below dated 13.9.2004 in the Sessions Trial No.120/2004 whereby charge has been framed under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicants. The impugned order records that both sides have been heard and report has been seen. However, thereafter, the order merely records its ‘conclusion’ in one line, that prima-facie case is made out under Section 306 of the IPC. The order of the Court below does not mention any evidence on the basis of which it arrived at this prima- facie conclusion. When both the sides have been heard, it is obvious that framing of charge would have been resisted on the ground that there was no evidence available on record on the basis of which charge could be framed. It has been stated in paragraph No. 5 of the memo of revision that statements of 12 witnesses were recorded during the investigation and except the allegation that the deceased was harassed by the applicants, there is no other material to bring the case within Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC. In the given circumstances, it could be reasonably expected of the trial Court to deal briefly with the available material against the accused on the basis of which it arrived at its conclusion about the existence of a prima facie case for framing of charge. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 13.9.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No.120/2004 is quashed. The matter will be reexamined by the trial Court. A copy of this order will be communicated by the office to the trial Court forthwith. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice YS/AK