JUDGMENT 1. - This revision by accused-petitioners is directed against the order dated 4.6.2003, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Deeg, ordered to frame charges under various Sections of IPC including Section 307/149 and u/ss. 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act. 2. Learned counsel contended that there was no evidence and learned Judge did not consider any material on record and he even did not record his opinion as to what offences are prima facie made out. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order. 3. I have considered the rival submissions. Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. are relevant which are reproduced 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 proceeding 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; (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 u/Cl. (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. 4. A bare perusal of above sections goes to show that the learned Judge it was required to consider the record of the case and documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and prosecution in this behalf, if he considers that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he may proceed with the trial. It is apparent from the impugned order that the learned Judge did not consider the record of the case and documents and also did not form any opinion as to whether there is any ground to frame the charges. He simply observed in his order that he heard and then ordered to frame the charges and thus this order is in contravention of the Provisions of Secs. 227 & 228 Cr.P.C. 5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 4.6.2003 is set aside and case is remanded o the learned trial Judge, who would pass appropriate order in the light of t observations made here-in- above keeping in view the Provisions of Secs. 227 & 228 Cr.P.C.Revision petition allowed. *******