JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. Three petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P. C.), have challenged the order dated 19.6.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No.139 of 1996. By the said order, charges were framed against accused persons/petitioners for the offences under Sections 307/34, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act. 2. Sri Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order for framing of charges, has firstly argued that on the date of occurrence of the present case besides present F. I. R. i. e. Bhore P. S. Case No.11 of 1996, two other F. I. Rs vide Bhore P. S. Case No.10 of 1996 and Bhore P. S. Case No.12 of 1996 were lodged. On the date of occurrence i. e.23.1.1996 at about 7.45 A. M. , petitioner no.1 gave his fardbeyan before the Officer-in-charge of Bhore Police Station. In this F. I. R. , husband of the informant of the present case and two others were made accused for offences under Sections 447, 324, 307, 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act. On the same date, one another F. I. R. vide Bhore P. S. Case No.12 of 1996 was registered on the self information of the Officer-in-charge, Bhore Police Station for the offence under Sec.25 (1)A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and in the said case, husband of the informant in the present case along with two others were made accused. Learned Senior Counsel by referring to Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit, which was filed today, further submits that in the case, which was registered on the basis of information of petitioner no.1, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 307/34, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that during the trial, husband of the informant died. 3. Learned Senior Counsel, while challenging the impugned order of framing of the charges, submits that the order of framing of the charge is non-speaking and on this ground alone, the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that during the trial, husband of the informant died. 3. Learned Senior Counsel, while challenging the impugned order of framing of the charges, submits that the order of framing of the charge is non-speaking and on this ground alone, the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that though learned Sessions Judge has recorded in his order of framing of the charges that he had perused the case diary and other record, in the case diary of the present case, there were no material indicating involvement of the petitioners and as such he submits that the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that while framing of the charges, it was required on the part of the learned court below to assign a detailed reason. He has also referred to provisions contained in Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he submits that recording of reason at the time of framing of the charge was must. Learned counsel has referred to several paragraphs of the case diary, which was earlier called for and received. He has referred to statement of three witnesses, who had made statement under Sec.161 of the Cr. P. C. and in their statement, they have stated that in the occurrence, the husband of the informant threw bomb on the petitioners, who were accused in Bhore P. S. Case No.11 of 1996. He submits that even in the case diary, there is no material to show that petitioners were involved in the case. On the contrary, the materials collected during the investigation shows that the husband of the informant Hari Pal was a dreaded criminal and in the alleged occurrence it was the husband of the informant, who threw bomb and while he was throwing second bomb on the accused persons of the present case, the bomb exploded in his hand and he received injuries. 4. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey,l earned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. She submits that now charges have already been framed and whatever defence the petitioners want to take can take at the stage of defence. She submits that this is not the stage to examine those materials. 4. Smt. Indu Bala Pandey,l earned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. She submits that now charges have already been framed and whatever defence the petitioners want to take can take at the stage of defence. She submits that this is not the stage to examine those materials. She further submits that while exercising power under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not required to conduct a roving enquiry or conduct a mini trial. On this ground, she submits that petition is liable to be rejected. 5. I have also examined the case diary, which was earlier called for and materials available on record of the present case including the impugned order. 6. First of all on the point of assigning reason, while framing charge, as argued by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, I am of the view that bare perusal of Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr. P. C. makes it clear that in case of either framing of the charges or rejecting a discharge petition, the court is not required to assign reason. However, in the event of discharging the accused, the provisions provides for recording reason. The wording of Sec.227 is itself very much clear. So far as Sec.228 of the Cr. P. C. is concerned, it indicates that even on presumption, charges can be framed. For the purpose of framing of the charges only requirement is to see as to whether prima facie case is made out or not. The word prima facie has been elaborately discussed by Honble Supreme Court in a case reported in 1996 (3) Cr. Law Journal 2448 (State of Maharashtra Vrs. Somnath Thapa ). In paragraph-30 of the said judgment it has held that on the basis of probability of commission of offence, it can be said that prima facie case is made out and if a prima facie case is made out then court is required to frame charge. I am of the view that at the time of framing of the charges, there is no requirement to assign a detailed reason. 7. Of course, at the time of hearing a petition under Sec.482 of the Cr. I am of the view that at the time of framing of the charges, there is no requirement to assign a detailed reason. 7. Of course, at the time of hearing a petition under Sec.482 of the Cr. P. C. as submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is not required to conduct a roving enquiry but in the present case, since case diary was earlier called for, it would be necessary to examine the contents of the case diary. I have examined the case diary. On perusal of the case diary, it is evident that at least informant of the case, who was none else, but an injured in the said occurrence, had categorically supported the prosecution case. So far as evidence of other witnesses, which have been referred by learned Senior Counsel, are concerned, in view of the facts of the present case, it appears that the Investigating Officer of the case had not taken sincere effort in collecting material in the present case. I am of the view that material collected during the investigation may not be looked into in isolation, but the evidences are to be looked into in its totality. At least on the statement of the informant of the present case, there is some material to proceed against the petitioners and as such I do not find any error in the order whereby charges have been framed against the accused persons. So far as conviction of accused persons in the case instituted by the petitioners is concerned, I am of the view that it is immaterial for the purpose of deciding the present case. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed no error, while framing charges against the accused persons. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected. 9. In this case, by order dated 25.1.1999, while calling for case diary, this court had directed that till then, further proceeding in Bhore P. S. Case No.11 of 1996, so far as the petitioners are concerned, shall remain stayed. Subsequently, by order dated 10.8.1999, this petition was admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application, the interim order dated 25.1.1999 shall continue. 10. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 11. Subsequently, by order dated 10.8.1999, this petition was admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application, the interim order dated 25.1.1999 shall continue. 10. In view of rejection of this petition, the interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. 12. The copy of case diary, which was earlier received, may be remitted back to the court below.