( 1 ) THIS appeal was filed by the State against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bapatla, dated 27-12-1995, acquitting under S. 235, cr. P. C. A. 1 to A. 8 for the charge under S. 147, IPC, A. 1 and A. 3 for the charge under S. 354, IPC A. 4 to A. 8 for the charge under S. 323, IPC, A. 3 under S. 323, IPC and A. 2 for the charge under S. 354 read with S. 149, IPC.

( 2 ) AT the outset, I feel it necessary to point out the mistake committed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in framing the charges. The charges are framed under S. 228, Cr. P. C. which reads :"228. 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, and thereupon the Chief Judicial 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) Where 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. "a careful reading of S. 228, Cr. P. C. reveals that the charges shall be framed by the Judge after consideration and hearing. Thereupon as per sub-section (2) of S. 228 Cr. P. C. the accused shall be asked whether he or they plead guilty of the charge.

( 3 ) IN the present case, a reading of the charges discloses that the learned Judge had framed them in a routine manner. I am under serious doubt whether any hearing had taken place before framing charges and also whether there was any consideration as regards framing of charges. It appears to me that the learned Judge had mechanically framed the charges. Further in compliance of Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 228, Cr. P. C. the learned Judge had questioned the accused as regards the charges framed against the accused. There appears to be some confusion in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge, which would only indicate that there was no proper hearing or consideration as contemplated under S. 228, Cr. P. C. If really there was hearing by the learned counsel appearing for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor the charges could not have been framed in such a confused fashion.

( 4 ) I would also at this juncture, point out that it is the duty of the learned counsel appearing for the accused as well as the learned Public Prosecutor to assist the Court by way of advancing their submissions in appropriate manner in order to enable the Court to frame the charges appropriately. It is also equally the duty of the counsel to point out to the Court if some mistake in framing of charges is found and lead the Court in a right direction. The counsel who are responsible officers of the Court shall act in a prudent manner and see that the charges are framed appropriately. In this connection, Sri Deshpande in the capacity of amicus curiae, while commenting upon the manner in which the charges are framed, brought to the notice of this Court a decision in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja AIR 1990 SC 1962 wherein it was held : "7. Again in Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 : AIR 1980 SC 52 this Court observed in paragraph 18 of the judgment as under :"the standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Ss. 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him