JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that notwithstanding the petitioner having concluded his arguments on the question of framing of charge way back on 19.9.1998 and notwithstanding the trial court having taken the cognisance against the accused for commission of offence under Sections 354, 365, 376/511 IPC way back on 31.5.1997, the trial court has still not framed the charge against the accused. Since the matter been pending at the stage of framing of charge ever since 19.9.1998, an application was moved on 12.4.1999 by the learned counsel for the petitioner that either the charge should be framed against the accused after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor or he may be discharged if, no offence is made out on prima facie view regarding framing of charge as per the requirement of Section 227, Cr.P.C. 2. Be that as it may, it is the bounden duty of the Court to decide the question relating to framing of charge at the earliest possible opportunity after necessary material has been made available before it by the prosecuting agency. I find no justification for withholding the question regarding framing of charge since admittedly the trial has been pending against the accused w.e.f. 31.5.1997 and till date the charge has not been framed. Besides his right to speedy trial is also effected. 3. This Court while disposing of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 670/97 Nenu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 16.10.97 had observed as under- "The contentions raised in this petition can very well be raised before the Court of Sessions as and when the case is committed to I am sure, before framing the charge against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 376/511 IPC, Sessions Court will definitely take into consideration the contentions raised by the accused, that the husband of the prosecutrix had not stated any word in his FIR that a rape was committed on his wife, not only that the 2C prosecutrix herself has not stated in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC. as well as under section 164 Cr.PC. before the learned Magistrate that a rape was committed." 4. In my view, the obligation which casts upon the court regarding framing of charge as per Section 228, Cr.PC. as well as under section 164 Cr.PC. before the learned Magistrate that a rape was committed." 4. In my view, the obligation which casts upon the court regarding framing of charge as per Section 228, Cr.PC. should not be lightly dealt with particularly, where the liberty of an individual is at stake. 5. The trial court is accordingly directed to take note of back drop of events w.e.f. 19.9.1998 to 12.4.1999 and shall not adjourn the case on one ground or the other, uncalled for. The trial court shall pronounce the orders on the question regarding framing of charge on the date fixed i.e. 10.5.1999. 6. With the above observations, the revision petition is allowed and stands disposed of.Revision Allowed. *******