IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4071 of 2007() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/10/2007 IN CMP.4326/03 IN CC.300/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-V, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ N.MANJURANI, D/O NARAYANAN, AGED 30 YEARS, SARADABHAVAN, THITTAMEL BHAGATH, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DETECTIVE INSPECTOR C.B.C.ID,KOTTAYAM, IN CRIME NO.38/CR/97, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON 17/01/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ---------------------- Crl.R.P.No.4071 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 239 Cr.P.C refusing to discharge the petitioner, who faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 420 and 471 I.P.C. 2. The petitioner had appeared for the second pre- degree examination. Her answer sheets were valued and marks were awarded by the University. She was not satisfied with the marks secured by her. She came to this court with a writ petition contending that her answer sheets have not been properly valued. To support that contention of hers, she produced a document claiming that to be an attested copy of her mark list for the first year. It was her contention that in the first year, she had secured very high marks and that the low marks secured in the second year must be by the result of improper valuation. The university, on receipt of the notice in the writ petition, had verified the records and found that the petitioner Crl.R.P.No.4071/07 2 had not obtained the marks which she claimed to have obtained in the first year as per the attested copy of the mark list. When that was realised, the petitioner refused to produce the original of the mark list. She beat a hasty retreat and did not press the writ petition. The university did not leave the matter there. A complaint was filed before the police. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken and the case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner, after entering appearance, claimed that she is entitled to be discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate heard the contentions and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to be discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C; but charges are liable to be framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned order is passed. 3. I find the learned Magistrate has written a detailed order. The law is very clear. The law does not oblige a Magistrate to write such a detailed order while considering the plea of discharge. If the decision is to frame charge, no detailed order is expected. On the contrary, if the decision is to discharge, the learned Magistrate must give reasons. This is evident from the language of Section 239 Cr.P.C. Crl.R.P.No.4071/07 3 “When accused shall be discharged.- If, upon considering 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 considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.” 4. When the decision is to frame charge, it is trite that no detailed decision is needed. Reasons are obvious. A reasoned order about culpability and the liability for facing trial is unnecessary and might fetter the discretions later. It might fetter the sensibility of the accused. No expression of opinion on culpability is really warranted at that stage. That is why the law does not insist that a reasoned order must be passed when the decision is not to discharge. Be that as it may, I find the learned Magistrate has passed a detailed speaking order. I have adverted to this aspect because I find such inadequacy and impropriety being repeated by several learned Magistrates. Even when this Court directs that the plea of discharge must be considered under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrates are not expected, I clarify, to write detailed speaking Crl.R.P.No.4071/07 4 orders when the decision is not to discharge and is to proceed with the trial. 5. I am of the opinion that I should not embark on a detailed discussion for the very same reasons referred to earlier as to whether culpability is indicated or not, lest it might fetter the options of the petitioner and may though unintentionally convey messages to the court which has, at a later date, to consider and dispose of the matter on merits. I shall stop short by saying that I find no reason to invoke the revisional power of superintendence and correction to interfere with the impugned order. I do make it clear that I do not consider “the charge against the accused to be groundless” as to justify the grievance that the petitioner has not been discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C. 6. This Crl.R.P is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.R.P.No.4071/07 5 Crl.R.P.No.4071/07 6 R.BASANT, J Crl.M.A.Nos.21 & 65 of 2008 in Crl.R.P.No.765 of 2007 ORDER 17th DAY OF JANUARY 2008