Cr.Rev. No. 1004/2000 22.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. This revision has been filed against the order of framing charge u/s 306 IPC against the applicant. The basis for the charge appears to be the following facts :- (i) On 24.11.98 the applicant is alleged to have taken Rs. 5500/- from the pocket of the deceased and to have got a paper signed by the deceased and to have told the deceased next morning that Rs. 50,000/- is due against the deceased. (ii) Ten days later, on 4.12.98, the deceased is alleged to have written a suicide note narrating the above facts, and to have kept the suicide note in his pocket, which was recovered from his pocket after his death. (iii) On 7.12.98, i.e. three days after the writing of the suicide note, the deceased is said to have died by consuming poison. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court should have given some reasons, instead of writing a cryptic order after hearing the parties that prima-facie case is made out. The trial court has not discussed or analyzed the evidence even briefly, which in a case of this nature appears to be important. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order framing the charge is quashed. The matter will be re-examined by the trial court. (Sushil Harkauli) Acting Chief Justice a