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, (2007) 12 SCC 1.

5. Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751.

6. K.Ramakrishna and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2000) 8 SCC 547.

7. Subhash v. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (27) LCD 1563.

4. On the other hand learned Additional Government Advocate Mr.Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi, also placed some decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court to support the order impugned, which are as under :

1. Manna Lal Gupta v. State of U.P. and another, 2009 (66) ACC 66.

2. State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.

3. Mohd. Sayeed v. State of U.P. and others, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1191 of 2011 and Smt. Anita Awasthi and another v. State of U.P. and others, passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1205 of 2011 dated 24.3.2011 by this Court.

4. R.S. Mishra v. State of Orissa and others, (2011) 2 SCC 689.

5. Bharat Parikh v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2008) 10 SCC 109.

6. Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishand v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and another, (1989) 1 SCC 715.

5. The controversy raised by the learned counsel for the revisionists has already been discussed and considered by this Court in the case of Manna Lal Gupta v. State of U.P., 2009 (66) ACC 66.

6. In the aforesaid judgment two questions were framed, the second one was “Whether the learned Judge is under obligation to record the reasons when he forms an opinion that there is sufficient ground for framing of charges?”

7. This question has been answered in the following manner :

“If the learned Judge arrives at conclusion that the accused is liable to be discharged as there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against him, he has to record his reasons for doing so, but if he forms an opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he is not supposed to record any reason for proceeding further as for that limited purpose, he has to form his opinion only on the basis of his prima facie satisfaction as to whether the case against an accused has been made out or not.”

8. In the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah and another v. State of W.B., 2000 (1) SCC 722, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the same question held that it is pertinent to point out that even in a trial before a Court of Session, the Judge is required to record reasons only if he decides to discharge the accused, but if he is to frame the charge he may do so without recording his reasons for showing why he framed the charge.

9. Recently in the case of Mohd.Sayeed v. State of U.P. and another, rendered in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1191 of 2011 and Smt. Anita Awasthi and another v. State of U.P. and others, rendered in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1205 of 2011, this Court had an occasion