1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.420 OF 2009 Chandraprakash Shrivastav Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & another Respondents A.M.Saraogi for petitioner. H.J.Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th June 2009 PC :- 1. Not on board. Taken on board. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The submissions were heard on the last date but the order was not passed as the learned APP had sought time. The submission of the advocate for the petitioner is that there was absolutely no material on record to frame charge against the petitioner under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. His submission is that without even examining the material on record forming part of the charge sheet, by a cryptic order, the learned Judge has directed that the charge be framed under 2 sections 376, 420 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that though the learned Judge has recorded that the advocate for the petitioner was heard, there is no consideration of the material forming part of the charge sheet. There is non-application of mind by the learned Judge. 4. The matter need not be kept pending in this Court as it needs to be reconsidered by the learned Judge. 5. Hence, I pass following order :- a) The impugned order dated 5th February 2009 is quashed and set aside; b) The learned Trial Judge will pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of being heard to the accused as well as learned Prosecutor; c) All contentions on merits are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)