Judgment J.N.Dubey, J. 1. This revision is directed against- the order dated 22nd July 1989 of the Special Judge (Under Essential Commodities Act) Saharsa, framing charge against the applicants under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. It appears that on 14-4-1988 at about 1 a.m. Truck No. BRU-6554 carrying 72 Tins of Mustard Oil was seized by the police and was taken to P.S. Bakhtiarpur. The police recorded the statement of the driver. Md. Subhan. In which he disclosed that out of 72 Tins of Mustard Oil. 11 belonged to the applicants. On the basis of statement of Md. Subhan an F.I.R. was recorded against the applicants. The police after completing the investigation of the case submitted a charge sheet against the applicants on 27-4-1989. The Special Judge after taking cognizance of the matter issued summons to the applicants. Accordingly, the applicants appeared before the Special Judge on 22nd July, 1989. The Special Judge framed charge against the applicants u/s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The order of the Special Judge is quoted below: "Both the accused persons have filed their attendance. Special P.P. also files his attendance. Case called out. Counsel for both the sides appeared. Heard on the point of accusation and perused the case record. Substance of accusation is explained to the accused persons in Hindi under Sec. 7 of the E.C. Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Let the case be fixed for evidence. Special P.P. files a petition for the issuance of summons against the P.Ws. Heard. Prayer is allowed. Issue summons to the P.Ws. put on 9-8-1989 for evidence." Feeling aggrieved the applicants have filed this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the Special Judge has not assigned any reason in his order for framing charge against the applicants. The impugned order being a non-speaking order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants. The Special Judge has neither cared to refer to the prosecution story nor to the evidence collected by the police during investigation to prove the charge. The framing of charge is a very important stage of a criminal trial and should be taken with all seriousness. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants. The Special Judge has neither cared to refer to the prosecution story nor to the evidence collected by the police during investigation to prove the charge. The framing of charge is a very important stage of a criminal trial and should be taken with all seriousness. The Special Judge was not justified in framing the charge against the applicants in such a casual manner. The order of the Special Judge is patently erroneous and cannot be legally sustained. 4. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 22nd July, 1989 of the Special Judge is set aside and he is directed to consider the question of framing of charge against the applicants afresh in accordance with law.