IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 150 Of 2009 Soloman Peter ………….. Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand & Another ………….Respondents Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for respondent no.1. Dated: December 11th , 2009 Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Heard Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the respondent no.1. By way of present revision under Section 397 and Section 401 Cr.P.C., revisionist is challenging charges framed by learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 3.8.2009. Copy of the order-sheet has been filed by the revisionist before this court. Mr. Pawan Mishra argued that while framing the charges, Sessions Judge failed to record reasons thereof. He further argued that there is no sufficient material for framing charges against the revisionist. Section 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. being reproduced hereunder; Section 227: Discharge:- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith , and after hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf , the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. Section228: Framing of charge:-(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,[or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate]shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. 2. Whether the Judge frames any charge under clause(b) of sub-section(1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.” From the perusal of Section 227 Cr.P.C.it can be safly said that reasons are required to be recorded while Sessions Court decide to discharge the accused ,however from the language of Section 228 Cr.P.C. recording of reasons is not at all required when Sessions Judge proceed to frame charges against the accused persons. The only requirement under Section 228 Cr.P.C. is to form an opinion. There is no requirement to record reasons or elaborate material available on record to form an opinion to frame the charges. Order dated 3.8.2009 reveals that Learned Sessions Judge has formed an opinion that there is sufficient material on the record to frame charges against the accused. In the opinion of this court impugned order does not suffer any illegality or jurisdictional error. No interference is called for. Revision is dismissed. C.R.M.A. No. No. 1046/2009 also stands disposed of. (Alok Singh, J.) 11.12.2009 Nishant