JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellants in CRL.A[MD].Nos.73, 81, 82 and 250 of 2016 are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.71 of 2014, on the file of the learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pattukottai. The appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.251 of 2016 is the de facto complainant and a victim. The Trial Court framed as many as six charges, as detailed below. Charge Accused Penal Provisions 1 1 to 4 120(B) IPC 2 1 to 4 294(b) IPC 3 1 302 IPC 4 4 342 IPC 5 2 to 4 307 r/w 34 IPC 6 1 to 4 352 IPC 2. By Judgment dated 26.02.2016, the Trial Court acquitted all the four accused from the charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, however, convicted them under the other charges, as detailed below:- Accused No. Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 1 294(b) IPC --- Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 352 IPC --- Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2 and 3 294(b) IPC --- Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 352 IPC ---- Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 307 r/w 34 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo , rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4 294(b) IPC --- Rs. 1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 352 IPC ---- Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 307 r/w 34 IPC To undergo rigorous Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for three years, rigorous imprisonment for six months. 342 IPC To under rigorous imprisonment for one year. Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The sentences have been ordered to by the villagers. In order to participate in run concurrently. Challenging the said the same, PW-1 and PW-2 along with the conviction and sentence, the appellants/deceased had gone to the said temple around accused Nos.1 to 4 have come up with 09.00 PM. The organizers had tied ropes to CRL.A[MD].Nos.73, 81, 82 and 250 of regulate the crowd. In order to participate in run concurrently. Challenging the said the same, PW-1 and PW-2 along with the conviction and sentence, the appellants/deceased had gone to the said temple around accused Nos.1 to 4 have come up with 09.00 PM. The organizers had tied ropes to CRL.A[MD].Nos.73, 81, 82 and 250 of regulate the crowd. When PW-1 and PW-2 2016 and challenging the acquittal of the along with the deceased were going in the accused Nos.1 to 4 from the charge under line along with the rope, suddenly, all these Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the four accused emerged. They approached de facto complainant/a victim, has come PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased menacingly, up with CRL.A[MD].No.251 of 2016. That All the four accused shouted at PW-1, PW-2 is how, all these Criminal Appeals are now and the deceased abusing them in filthy before us for disposal. language. On reaching them, it is alleged 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the first accused had stabbed the as follows:- 3.1. The deceased, in this case, was one body. When PW-2 intercepted, with a view Mr.Velmurugan. PW-1 is a resident of to rescue the deceased, the fourth accused Aavikkottai Village in Dindigul District. caught him hold and the second accused PW-2 and the deceased are the sons of PW-stabbed him with a knife on his head and 1. They were also residing with PW-1 at neck. The third accused stabbed PW-2 with Aavikkottai Village. Two months prior to knife on his buttocks and shoulders. PW-1 06.07.2009, all these accused were found intervened. All the four accused kicked him drinking liquor in the borewell shed of with legs and fisted him with hands. PW-1 PW-1. PW-1 questioned the same. This also fell down. PW-2 and the deceased had resulted in an ill-feeling between PW-1 and already fallen in a pool of blood. All these the accused. This is stated to be the motive four accused ran away from the scene of for the occurrence. occurrence. PW-1 and PW-2 raised alarm. 3.2. It is further alleged that on account The people in the crowd also witnessed the of the said motive, all these four accused occurrence. had conspired. [What was the conspiracy for has not been stated in the charge]. occurrence. PW-1 and PW-2 raised alarm. 3.2. It is further alleged that on account The people in the crowd also witnessed the of the said motive, all these four accused occurrence. had conspired. [What was the conspiracy for has not been stated in the charge]. On 6.7.2009, in connection with the maigai vinayagar Temple Festival at Aavikkottai village, a music programme was arranged by the villagers. In order to participate in the same, PW-1 and PW-2 along with the deceased had gone to the said temple around 09.00 PM. The organizers had tied ropes to regulate the crows. When PW-1 and PW-2 along with the deceased were going in the line along with the rape, suddenly, all these four accused emerged. They approached PW-1, PW-2 intercepted, with a view to rescue the deceased the fourth accused stabbed him with a knifr on his head and neck. The people in the crowd also witnessed the occurrence. 3.3. Immediately, thereafter, with the help for has not been stated in the charge]. On of others, PW-1 took the deceased and PW-2 06.07.2009, in connection with the Maigai to the Government Hospital at Mannarkudi. Vinayagar Temple Festival at Aavikkottai After treatment for some time, the doctors Village, a music programme was arranged in the said hospital advised PW-1 to take PW-2 and the deceased to a private hospital at Dindigul. Accordingly, PW-2 and the deceased were taken to the Vinothakan Memorial Hospital at Thanjavur, where they were admitted as in-patients. Since I PW-1 had sustained only minor injury, he took treatment as out-patient. 3.4. On getting intimation from the hospital, PW-15, the then Head Constable, attached to the Madukkur Police Station, rushed to the Vinothakan Memorial Hospital, at 10.30 AM, on 07.07.2009. Since the deceased and PW-2 were unconscious, he waited in the hospital and thereafter, he came to know that at 11.20 A M, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Thereafter, PW-15 recorded the statement of PW-1 at 11.45 AM. On returning to the Police Station, at 01.00 PM, he handed over the said statement to the Sub-Inspector of Police. 3.5. PW-14, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said statement, [vide EX-PI] registered a case in Crime No.206 of 2009, under Sections 294(b), 342, 323, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. EX-I P14 is the First Information Report. 3.5. PW-14, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said statement, [vide EX-PI] registered a case in Crime No.206 of 2009, under Sections 294(b), 342, 323, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. EX-I P14 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. 3.6. Taking up the case for investigation, at 03.00 PM, on 07.07.2009, PW-16 proceeded to the Vinothakan Memorial Hospital, Thanjavur, where he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. EX-P15 is the inquest report. Then, he went to the place t of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of j occurrence. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 3.7. PW-11 - Dr.K.G.Padmanaban conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 07.07.2009. EX-P10 is the postmortem certificate. He noticed the following injuries:- External Injuries: 1 Surgically made midline laprotoomy wound seen over the front of abdomen 19 cm above and 6 cm below the umbilicus. 2. Sutured cut injury measuring 4 x 2 cm x muscle deep seen over the left side of the neck. 3. Sutured laceration measuring 9 x 1 cm x bone deep seen over right dorsum of wrist joint region. 4. Sutured cut injury measing 5 x 2 cm x bone deep seen over the palmer aspect of right hand below the right thumb. 5. Intercostal drain seen over the right side of lateral wall of chest in the 5th intercostal region (for treatment purpose). 6. Surgically made drainage wound seen over the right flank (for treatment purpose). 7. Sutured laceration measuring 3 x 2 cm x bone deep over left side of hip region with underlying left pulis iliac crest bone fracture with surrounding contusion. 8. Abrasion reddish brown in colour measuring 6 x 1 cm seen over lateral aspect of left arm. 9. Sutured stab injury seen on top of left shoulder measuring 2 x 1 cm x muscle deep. 10. Sutures stab injury seen over the right back of abdomen in renal area measuring 4 x 2 cm x peritoneal cavity depth. 11. Sutured stab injury seen over the right upper gluteal region measuring 2 x 1 cm x muscle deep. 9. Sutured stab injury seen on top of left shoulder measuring 2 x 1 cm x muscle deep. 10. Sutures stab injury seen over the right back of abdomen in renal area measuring 4 x 2 cm x peritoneal cavity depth. 11. Sutured stab injury seen over the right upper gluteal region measuring 2 x 1 cm x muscle deep. He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries involving the vital organ - right kidney. 3.8. On 08.07.2009, near Sirankudi Branch Road, PW-16 arrested all the four accused in the presence of PW-9 and another witness. On such arrest, all the four accused gave voluntary confessions one after the other. PW-16 recorded the same. In his confession, the first accused disclosed the place, where he had hidden three knives. In pursuance of the same, the accused took the police and the witnesses to the hide out and produced three knives [MO-1 to MO-3]. PW-16 recovered the same under a mahazer. On returning to the Police Station, PW-16 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. He also handed over the material objects to the Court. PW-16 examined many more witnesses and recorded their statements. 3.9. Thereafter, the investigation was continued by PW-17. He examined the doctors, who treated PW-2 and the deceased and collected the medical records, including the postmortem certificate. At his request, the material objects were sent for chemical examination, lire report revealed that there were human bloodstains on all the material objects, including the knives - MO-1 to MO-3. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3.10. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges [erroneously], as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined, 18 documents and five material objects were marked. Out of the said 17 witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence as eye-witnesses. They also sustained injuries in the very same occurrence. PW-1 has spoken about the complaint made by him, after the demise of the deceased. 3.11. Out of the said 17 witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence as eye-witnesses. They also sustained injuries in the very same occurrence. PW-1 has spoken about the complaint made by him, after the demise of the deceased. 3.11. PW-3 has stated that when he was in temple, he heard about the occurrence, came to the place of occurrence and found PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased with injuries. He has further stated that he found all the four accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. At that time, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were armed with knives and the fourth accused was armed with an iron rod. PW-4 has stated that he was also present in the temple at the relevant point of time. He heard the alarm raised and rushed to the place of occurrence. According to him, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were armed with knives and the fourth accused was armed with an iron rod. PW-5 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW-6 has also stated that when he was in the temple, he heard the alarm raised and immediately, he rushed to the place of occurrence. At the place of occurrence, he found all the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence He has further stated that the accused Nos.1 to 3 were armed with knives and the fourth accused was armed with an iron rod. 3.12. PW-7 has stated that after hearing about the occurrence, he went to the place of occurrence and with the help of others, he took PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased to the Government Hospital at Mannarkudi. He has further stated that as advised by the doctor, he took PW-2 and the deceased to the Vinothakan Memorial Hospital, Thanjavur and admitted them as in-patients. PW-9, the then Village Administrative Officer, who was expected to speak about the arrest of all the four accused, disclosure statements made by the first accused and the recovery of the material objects - MO-1 to MO-3 from the hide out, on the disclosure statement made by the first accused, had not supported the case of the prosecution in full. Still, he was not treated as hostile. 3.13. Still, he was not treated as hostile. 3.13. PW-10, Dr.D.Jeyaprakash, has stated that on 06.07.2009, at 09.00 PM, when he was on duty at Vinothakan Memorial Hospital, Thanjavur, the deceased was brought to him for treatment. At that time, the deceased was fully conscious. He told him that he was attacked by three known persons with knives. There were as many as seven stab injuries found on the body of the deceased. He has further stated that despite efforts taken, the deceased succumbed to the injuries, on 07.07.2005 at 11.20 AM. He examined PW-2, who was also brought for treatment. He found a number of stab injuries on his body. The injuries were simple in nature. EX-P9 is the Accident Register. 3.14. PW-11 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. PW-12, a Forensic Expert, has stated that he examined the material objects at the Regional Forensic Lab at Dindigul and found human bloodstains on all the material objects, including the knives - MO-1 to MO-3. PW-13, Dr.R.Manjula, has stated that at 11.30 PM, on 06.07.2009, when she was on duty at the Government Hospital, Mannarkudim, PW-2 was brought to her for treatment. At that time, the deceased was conscious. He told that when he was travelling in a motorcycle, three persons stabbed him with knives. She found number of stab injuries on the body of the deceased. Since the injuries were serious in nature, according to her, she referred PW-2 to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for further treatment. EX-P12 is the Accident Register. She has further stated that on the same day, at 11.35 AM, she examined the deceased. He also told that he was attacked by three known persons with knives. She found cut injuries and an abrasion on his body. She referred him to the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital. 3.15. PW-14 has spoken about the statement recorded from PW-1. [Vide EX-PI], on 07.07.2009 at 11.20 AM. PW-15 has spoken about the registration of the case, on the complaint made by PW-1. PW-16 and PW-17 have spoken about the investigation conducted by them and the filing of final report. 3.16. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied the same as false. PW-16 and PW-17 have spoken about the investigation conducted by them and the filing of final report. 3.16. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document. Their defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellants, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and punished them accordingly. That is how, the appellants are now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and also perused the records carefully. 5. Though the learned counsel on either side made elaborate submissions, touching upon the merits of the evidences available on record, we are unable to go into the same, as we are totally dissatisfied with the charges framed by the Trial Court. Therefore, let us, at the first, examine the correctness of the charges framed in the case by the Trial Court. 6. The first charge framed against all the four accused is under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code simpliciter. The Trial Court had failed to take note that the Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code consists of two sub-sections, which read as follows:- "120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both". 7. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both". 7. A reading of Sub-Section (i) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code would make it clear that for quantum of punishment to be imposed for the offence of conspiracy falling within the ambit of Sub-Section (i) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is traceable to the main offence as enumerated in the said provision itself as though the accused had abetted such offence. For example, if the conspiracy was to commit murder, the charge should be under Section 120-B r/w Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. If he is found guilty of conspiracy, he shall be punished either with death sentence or imprisonment for life and with fine, which is the punishment for murder. 8. Now, turning to Sub-Section (ii) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, if the conspiracy is to commit any other offence, other than the offences enumerated in Sub-Section (i) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, then, the punishment for the said offence is imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. At any rate, the charge should specifically state as to whether it is under Sub-Section (i) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code or Sub-Section (ii) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and it should indicate as to what was the main offence that was abetted. 9. In the instant case, the Trial Court had not indicated in the charge as to whether it was for an offence under Sub-Section (i) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code or Sub-Section (ii) of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and it has not indicated the main offence, which was abetted, [conspired]. Thus, the charge framed against the accused under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code simpliciter is highly defective and it does not conform to Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. The second charge framed by the Trial Court is against all the four accused, under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. This would indicate that all the four accused had common intention among themselves. 10. The second charge framed by the Trial Court is against all the four accused, under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. This would indicate that all the four accused had common intention among themselves. The third charge framed by the Trial Court is against the first accused alone under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that he had stabbed the deceased seven times on his body and caused his death. It is the positive case of the prosecution, as culled out from the police report and the documents filed therein, that all the four accused came together to the place of occurrence, armed with weapons, they together approached the deceased, menacingly and all the four accused shouted at the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 in abusive language. It was only in the same transaction, it is alleged that the first accused had stabbed the deceased and caused his death. 11. From the above, it is inferable that all the four accused had gone there with the common intention of causing the death of the deceased. From the police report, it cannot be inferred that the first accused had his own intention to cause the death of the deceased which was not shared with the other accused. The police report clearly indicates that all the four accused went together, all armed with weapons and in the same transaction, the first accused caused the death of the deceased by stabbing him seven times. When that be so, the Trial Court ought to have framed charges against the accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. But, unfortunately, the Trial Court had not framed any such charge, by invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Nos.2 to 4. 12. The fifth charge is against the accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is based on the allegation that the fourth accused caught hold PW-2 and the accused Nos.2 and 3 stabbed him with knives. When the Trial Court had invoked Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to frame charges against the three accused, it is quite shocking that the Trial Court had declined to invoke Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to frame charge against the accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence of murder also. When the Trial Court had invoked Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to frame charges against the three accused, it is quite shocking that the Trial Court had declined to invoke Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to frame charge against the accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offence of murder also. Further, it is not as though the first accused had no common intention with the accused Nos.2 to 4, when the accused Nos.2 and 3 had stabbed PW-2. Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have framed charge against the first accused also under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the Trial Court had failed to frame appropriate charges as required in law. Now-a-days, we have come across several such cases, where charges have not been framed, properly, as dealt with in Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is largely because there is no such practise in many of the Sessions Courts in this State for the Public Prosecutors to open the case, as required under Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. 14. Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:- 226. Opening case for prosecution. When the accused appears or is brought before the Court in pursuance of a commitment of the case under section 209, the prosecutor shall open his case by describing the charge brought against the accused and stating by what evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. 15. The above provision contained in Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seldom followed by the Public Prosecutors and mostly ignored. The Trial Courts also, we are informed, do not insist upon the Public Prosecutor concerned to open the case. As mandated in Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is the statutory obligation on the part of the Public Prosecutor to open the case and to state the charges to be brought against the accused. Only after hearing the Public Prosecutor and after perusing the records, the Court has to either frame charge against the accused or discharge him, as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. Only after hearing the Public Prosecutor and after perusing the records, the Court has to either frame charge against the accused or discharge him, as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. Since this practise has been almost done away with in many Courts, we have seen that most of the cases are being tried without framing appropriate charges, resulting ultimately in miscarriage of justice. This has become a common event. We regret for this scenario. We are hopeful that the Sessions Judges would at least hereinafter meticulously follow Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 16. As we have come to the conclusion that the charges have not been framed properly and since we have already found that there has occurred failure of justice on account of the same, as provided in Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we deem it appropriate to remand back the case to the Trial Court with a direction to frame appropriate charges, after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties and then to pass fresh Judgment, for which we are bound to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused Nos.1 to 4 and also the acquittal of the accused under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Since we are inclined to remand the matter back to the Trial Court, we refrain ourselves from entering into the domain of appreciation of the evidence let in by the prosecution. The observations, which we have made herein above, are not based on the evidence let in by the prosecution, but, on the basis of the police report and the documents filed therewith. Therefore, any of the observations, which we have made herein above, shall not influence the Trial Court, except to the limited extent of framing appropriate charges by the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall dispose of the case independently on appreciating the evidence afresh. 17. Therefore, any of the observations, which we have made herein above, shall not influence the Trial Court, except to the limited extent of framing appropriate charges by the Trial Court and the Trial Court shall dispose of the case independently on appreciating the evidence afresh. 17. In the result, CRL.A[MD].Nos.73, 81, 82 and 250 of 2016 filed by the accused Nos.1 to 4 are allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused Nos.1 to 4 are set aside; CRL.A[MD].No. 251 of 2016 filed by the de facto complainant against the acquittal of the accused Nos.1 to 4 from some of the charges is also allowed and the case in S.C.No.71 of 2014, on the file of the learned Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pattukottai, is remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Trial Court shall alter the charges, appropriately, as indicated in the Judgment, afford sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to let in additional evidence, if any, either oral or documentary and also allow the prosecution to recall any witness examined already for the purpose of further examination. Similarly, the Trial Court shall allow the accused Nos.1 to 4 to recall any witness already examined by the prosecution for the purpose of further cross-examination and allow the accused Nos.1 to 4 to let in evidence on their side, either oral or documentary'. At any rate, the Trial Court shall dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 18. Since the first accused was on bail during the period of trial, he is ordered to be released on bail, pending disposal of S.C.No.71 of 2014, on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pattukottai, subject to a further condition that he shall report before the said Court, on all the hearing dates, till the disposal of S.C.No.71 of 2014, unless his personal appearance is dispensed by the Trial Court. Note to the Registry:- 19. Note to the Registry:- 19. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this Judgment to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for considering to circulate this Judgment to the Sessions Judges in the State, since it highlights the importance of the case being opened by the Public Prosecutors and also for the Trial Courts to frame appropriate charges. We also request the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider to direct the Registry to issue necessary circular that the Sessions Judges in the State shall scrupulously follow Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.