JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of two revision petitions No. 279/98 & 664/98 and Misc. Petition No. 1065/98 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have heard learned counsel Shri J.S. Choudhary for Kheta Ram in Cr. Revision No. 279/98 & in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1065/98 and Shri R.K. Bhatia on behalf of Bhawnath in Cr. Revision No. 664/98. 2. So far as misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, counsel submitted that the order by which cognizance was taken should be quashed, in the alternative it was submitted that the revision petition against charge has been preferred by Kheta Ram and the charge may be quashed by accepting revision No. 279/98. 3. The revisions have been preferred against the orders of charge levelled against the petitioners in Cr. Case No. 583/95 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur by which she framed charge under Section 406 IPC by order dated 1.4.1998. Facts may be narrated as follows- 4. Enforcement Officer of Employees Provident Fund, Jodhpur lodged a report with police on 4.9.1990 that M/s. Automobile co-operative Workshop Ltd. Jodhpur was covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and it was the duty of the employer that contribution-towards Provident Fund and family pensions should have been deposited with the competent authorities. Inspection of M/s. Automobile Co-operative, Workshop was conducted for the period from 4.6.1990 to 4.9.1990 and it was revealed that from December, 1989 to April, 1990 no amount was deposited in the Provident Fund though the contribution was deducted from the salaries of the employees. Thus criminal breach of trust was committed for which the members of the Board of Directors and Shri B.N. Sharma, Manager were responsible. FIR No. 255/90 was registered and police submitted final report. The final report was not accepted by Magistrate and it was ordered that further investigation be done. The case was further investigated and a challan was submitted against certain persons. After submission of challan when the case was fixed for taking cognizance, Prosecution submitted an application that Kheta Ram Choudhary was also responsible and the learned Magistrate after hearing all the parties took cognizance for offence under Section 406 IPC by order dated 18.3.1996 and as stated above framed charges under Section 406 IPC against Kheta Ram, Bhawnath and against two others. It are Kheta Ram and Bhawnath who have challenged the order. 5. Counsel for petitioner Kheta Ram submitted that the police had submitted final report against Kheta Ram and that Kheta Ram resigned on 21.10.1989 while the period for which the defalcation is said to have been made relates to December, 1989 to April, 1990 for which Kheta Ram cannot be held liable. He also submitted that the cognizance is time barred. Citing 1995 Cr.LR (SC) page 114, State of Maharashtra v. Sharad Chand Vinayak, he submitted that Magistrate is bound to hear accused if cognizance is taken beyond limitation. Counsel for Bhawnath submitted that Bhawnath was a foreman and not Manager and as such he was concerned with the money and was not responsible either to deduct or contribute towards provident fund of the employees. He submitted that this accused also resigned on 6.6.1990 and cannot be held liable for offence. He submitted that the amount was with one Pukh Raj and not with petitioner Bhawnath and as such he also cannot be held responsible. In the end learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order of learned Magistrate is not speaking one. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor tried to support the order taking cognizance as well as of framing charge by learned Magistrate. 7. From the record of the trial court I find that the learned Magistrate heard arguments before charge on 1.4.1998 and on the same day framed charges under Section 406 IPC against the accused petitioners without giving any reasons. From the order i found that learned Magistrate was under the confusion whether the offence under Section 406 IPC was triable as a summons case or as a warrant case, therefore, she passed order in the following words- " cgl pktZ lquh xbZA i`Fkd~ ls fopfjr dj eqyfteku ij 406 vkbZ0ih0lh0 ls n.Muh; vijk/kksa ls vkjksfir dj mDr vijk/k dk lkjka'k mUgsa lquk;k o le>k;k x;kA " 8. The offence under Section 406 IPC is punishable with three years' imprisonment and consequently a case for offence under Section 406 IPC is to be tried as a warrant case. However, the order framing charge is not speaking one. This Court in so many rulings, reported and unreported, has held many a time that when a charge is framed against an accused, a speaking order should be passed. However, the order framing charge is not speaking one. This Court in so many rulings, reported and unreported, has held many a time that when a charge is framed against an accused, a speaking order should be passed. It was all the more necessary in this case when so many points have been raised on behalf of accused petitioners Kheta Ram and Bhawnath. In Cr. Revision Petition No. 608/97, Jafar v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 24.3.1999 and in S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions No. 597/98, Rajmal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, & 625/98, Lala Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 11.1.1999 , it has been observed that while framing charge, speaking order should be passed. The order dated 1.4.1998 framing the charge against Kheta Ram and Bhawnath petitioners is not speaking one. So it has to be quashed. 9. So far as petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the arguments raised by learned counsel for Kheta Ram can be raised before the learned Magistrate including the argument about bar by limitation in taking cognizance. He may even submit an application in writing raising objections on the point of cognizance because in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala and another 1992 Cr.LR (SC) page 170 , it was observed that Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration and if no offence is made out. 10. Consequently, the revision petitions are allowed and the order dated 1.4.1998 by which charges under Section 406 IPC were framed against the petitioners and the charges themselves are quashed qua the petitioners. Learned Magistrate is directed to decide the points to be raised by speaking order. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with direction that learned Magistrate shall hear the objections of the petitioner and decide them by a speaking order.Revision Allowed. *******