Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Revision Nos. 318, 343 and 856 of 1999, which have been filed by three different accused against the order dated 11.12.1998 vide which charge has been framed against them by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, under Sections 379/409 and 120-B IPC in case FIR No. 154 dated 5.7.1998 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Patiala. However, the facts are taken from Criminal Revision No. 318 of 1999. 2. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the said order was totally a non-speaking and cryptic order in which no discussion has been made and no reason has been recorded for framing the charge against the petitioner under the aforesaid Sections. 3. This court issued notice of motion in this case on October 31, 2000, on the basis of the following contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner;- "Contends that no specific order supported by reasons has been passed whether a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. In fact, the order passed on 11.12.1998 is non-speaking, sketchy and cryptic one." Subsequently, the record of the trial Court was also called for. 4 FIR in this case was lodged against the petitioner on 5.7.1998, on the basis of the complaint written by the General Manager, PRTC Patiala-II to the Senior Supdt. of Police, Patiala. In the complaint, it was alleged that the petitioner and his other co-accused while on duty as Sub Inspectors and who were having the duty of disbursement of tickets to various conductors, had stolen the tickets and misappropriated the amount mentioned in the complaint. It was also alleged that after investigating the case, the police filed the challan against all the accused under Sections 379/409 and 120-B IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after taking into consideration the police report and the documents annexed therewith and after hearing the counsel for the accused, prima-facie came to the conclusion that there were sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and accordingly framed the charge against the petitioner under Section 379/409 and 120-B IPC. 5. Vide Crl. Misc. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after taking into consideration the police report and the documents annexed therewith and after hearing the counsel for the accused, prima-facie came to the conclusion that there were sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and accordingly framed the charge against the petitioner under Section 379/409 and 120-B IPC. 5. Vide Crl. Misc. No. 5918 of 2002, the petitioner placed on record the copy of the order dated 28.4.2000 passed by the Managing Director, PRTC vide which the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner Ved Parkash, was disposed of while holding him guilty but the order of punishment was modified and reduced to the stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect. In the said order, the contention of the petitioner for staying the departmental proceedings on the ground that the criminal case was pending against the petitioner was declined and the findings of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner along with other officials caused loss of tickets worth of Rs. 45,000/- was held to be duly proved. 6. Arguments of both the parties heard. Record perused. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made three-fold submissions. Firstly, that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not apply its mind at all while framing the charge. No reason has been recorded in the order dated 11.12.1998 in which it has been mentioned that prima-facie case is made out against the accused for charging them under Section 379, 409 and 120-B IPC. No discussion has been made in the order, therefore, the said order is wholly cryptic and non-speaking and the same is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, J.T. 2004(2) S.C. 171. Secondly, that the essential ingredients for committing the offence under Section 379 IPC are missing. He further contends that the petitioner cannot be charged for the offences under Section 379 and 406 IPC simultaneously as both the offences are antithesis. He further submitted that there is no material on the record which shows that dishonest intention of the accused petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 791. He further submitted that there is no material on the record which shows that dishonest intention of the accused petitioner. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 791. Thirdly, that in the departmental enquiry, the petitioner has been reinstated and the alleged amount of misappropriation/value of the tickets had been deposited, therefore, no loss was caused to the respondent-Corporation. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Amrit Singh, 1992(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 619. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at that stage of framing the charge, the Court is only required to prima facie frame an opinion that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused for the alleged offence. Even on a very strong suspicion founded on the material placed before the Magistrate, the charge can be framed against the accused. He also stated that the Court is not required to record its reasons while framing the charge. The recording of the reasons is necessary when the Court decides to discharge the accused. The learned trial Court after prima-facie satisfying itself about the material available on the record, has framed the charge against the, petitioner. He further submitted that the charge cannot be quashed on the ground that in the departmental proceedings, the accused petitioner has deposited the amount involved in the case. He submits that in exceptional circumstances, this Court should quash the charge that too when framing of the charge amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. The case is hand does not fall in the said exception. 9. After hearing the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. It is well settled law, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. v. State of W.B., (2000)1 S.C.C. 722, that the Court is not required to record reasons when charges are to be framed against an accused. Section 239 Cr.P.C. shows that the Magistrate is required to record his reasons if he decides to discharge an accused. v. State of W.B., (2000)1 S.C.C. 722, that the Court is not required to record reasons when charges are to be framed against an accused. Section 239 Cr.P.C. shows that the Magistrate is required to record his reasons if he decides to discharge an accused. But while framing the charge against an accused under Section 240 Cr.P.C. there is no such requirement. The position is same in the cases instituted otherwise than on police report. The learned Magistrate is required to record his reasons showing only when he is to discharge the accused. Even in a trial before the Court of Sessions, the Judge is required to record his reasons if he decides to discharge the accused. In this regard, the Honble Supreme Court has made the following observations:- "If there is no legal requirement that the trial Court should write an order showing the reasons for framing a charge, there is no need to further burden the already burdened trial Courts with such extra work. The time has reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all roadblocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail paced progress of proceedings in trial courts would further be slowed down. A detailed order may be passed for culminating the proceedings before them, but it is quite unnecessary to writ detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the trial. It is a salutary guideline that when orders rejecting or granting bail are passed, the Court should avoid expressing one way or the other on contentious issues, except in cases such as those falling within Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985." 10. The aforesaid legal position was further reiterated in On Wati (Smt.) and Anr. v. State through Delhi Admn. and Ors., 2001(4) S.C.C. 333, Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of charge passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be quashed on the ground that no reason was recorded by the Magistrate before framing the charge against the accused petitioner. and Ors., 2001(4) S.C.C. 333, Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of charge passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be quashed on the ground that no reason was recorded by the Magistrate before framing the charge against the accused petitioner. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhars case (supra) is not applicable as the said judgment was given by the Honble Apex Court when the High court had declined the prayer of the State seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. by passing a short order under "Leave to appeal is refused". The said ruling is not applicable for not giving the reasons at the time of framing the charge against the accused. 11. As far as the other two contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, in my opinion, the same are not tenable at this stage. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out how the essential ingredients of the offence under Sections 379 and 409 IPC are missing. Neither, he has mentioned any fact in this regard in his grounds of revision nor he has pointed out any material or any omission in this regard from the report submitted by the police. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Pardeep Kumars case (supra) which says that the offence under Section 40-6 IPC is antithesis of the offence under Section 420 IPC, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. Regarding the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the documents placed by him rather goes against him. Merely because the accused has paid the misappropriated amount, he cannot claim that the charge should not be framed against him. 13. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in these petitions. 14. Hence, Crl. Revision Nos. 318, 343 and 856 of 1999 are dismissed. 15. Since the matter pertains to the year 1998, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and may complete the same within a period of two years. 16. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the trial Court immediately.