JUDGMENT 1. - This revision filed by complainant Kanhaiyalal is directed against the order dated 24.8.2000, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar, discharging the accused respondents from offence under Sections 302, 302/149, 148 and 147 IPC and framing charge against them for offence under Sections 148, 304, 304/149 IPC. 2. Notice was issued to the accused respondents. 3. Mr. Madhav Mitra put appearance on behalf of State of Rajasthan and Mr. Manoj Sharma, for the accused respondents. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order. 5. Mr. Dhand, counsel for the complainant submits that in this matter, vide order dated 22.12.1998, cognizance was taken by concerned Magistrate against the accused respondents Nagarmal and Ram Dev for offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and that order was upheld by this Court vide order dated 10.3.1999 and the case was committed to Sessions Courts, Sikar, from where it was transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar. 6. Mr. Dhand contends that while hearing charge argument, learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar would have either framed the charge for those offences for which the matter was committed to that Court or if that Court was not framing the charge for those offences, then it was bound to give the reasons for not doing so and discharging the accused respondents from those offences. Learned Sessions Judge has neither held in his order that accused respondents are discharged from offence under Section 302 IPC nor gave any reasons for not framing the charge for the aforesaid offence. He contends that learned Judge would have framed charge for offence under Sections 302 and 302 read with 149 IPC against the accused respondents. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, counsel for accused respondents contends that the order passed by learned lower court is perfectly legal one; the revision be rejected and even if the revision is accepted, lower court be directed to hear both the parties and then decide the matter. 8. I have also heard learned Public Prosecutor. 9. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, counsel for accused respondents contends that the order passed by learned lower court is perfectly legal one; the revision be rejected and even if the revision is accepted, lower court be directed to hear both the parties and then decide the matter. 8. I have also heard learned Public Prosecutor. 9. In this matter, cognizance was taken by learned Magistrate against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 302 and 302 read with 149, 147, 148 IPC and case was committed for trial of those offences to the Sessions Court from where the matter was ultimately transferred to learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, who passed this impugned order. 10. In this matter Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. are relevant which read as under: "227. Discharge.-If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing." "228. Framing of charge.-(1) If. after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which- (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report. (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he. pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." 11. (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he. pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." 11. After reading the relevant provisions and the impugned order, I am of the view that either lower court should have framed the charges for offence under Section 302 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, or if that Court was of the view that against these accused respondents the offence under Section 302 and 302 read with 149 was not made out then that Court should have discharged them from those offences and should have given grounds for so doing as mentioned under Section 227 Cr.P.C. In my opinion, lower court has committed illegality in passing the order and as such the same is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 12. Consequently, I allow this revision, set-aside the impugned order dated 24.8.2000, and remand the matter back to the lower court for deciding the same afresh after hearing both the parties in view of the provisions of Section 227 and 228 of the Code. Both the parties are directed to appear before the lower court on 18.9.2001. 13. It is made clear that as the learned Magistrate has committed the case for offence under Sections 302 and 302 read with 149 IPC, therefore, either the lower court should frame the charge against the accused respondents for this offence or is that Court is of the view that charge for such offence under Section 302 and 302 read with 149 IPC is not made out then that Court should discharge the accused respondents from those offence under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and should give grounds for so doing. Any opinion expressed above shall not affect the merits of the case.Revision Allowed-Case Remanded. *******