Hon’ble Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr.N.N.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionists and Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Since both the Criminal Revisions arise out of the same impugned order, both are being disposed of by the common order.

3. The revisionists have challenged the order dated 21st of January, 2011, passed on the application for discharge basically on the ground that the learned Court below has rejected the application without giving any finding in the matter, whereas according to him the order should be supported with the reasons. It is further stated that at least the material, which can be produced by the accused, at the stage contemplated for Section 239 or 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should be examined and then the order be passed. In support of his submission he cited the following decisions :

1. Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and another, (1996) 9 SCC 766.

2. East Coast Railway and another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and others, (2010) 7 SCC 678.

3. M/s.Som Datt Bulders Ltd. v. State of Kerala, 2009 LCD 1554 (SC).

4. Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2