JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. In this revision application, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 20.05.2013, by which the learned Sessions Judge-VII, Giridih, in S.T. No. 430 of 2007 has dismissed the petition under section 228 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners and has held that there are no ground to remit back the case to the committing Court for trial as charges are to be framed under sections 307 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. An F.I.R. was lodged by one Sub-Inspector Sri Arvind Kumar Sinha, stating therein that a road accident had taken place at Bhorandiha on 21.06.2005, in which a Dumper bearing registration No. WB-37A/5921 knocked a cyclist who died during treatment. It has been further mentioned that as the owner of the dumper refused to pay any relief to the victim's family there was a road blocked. It is mentioned that efforts on behalf of the administration failed and the road blocked could not be cleared. Further it is stated that all requests made by the police officials could not bear any result and the crowd was demanding arrest and production of the owner of the dumper, namely, Nirbhay Kumar Sahabadi. As nothing happened, a direction was given to arrest the leaders, who were leading the mob. The police, thereafter, tried to clear the road by removing obstruction, which were put up by the mob. At this, the mob became violent and started pelting bricks and stones, which were there on the road side resulting in injuries to some of the police personnels. One of the persons in the mob, namely, Jainath Rana assaulted Havildar Chandrahas Prasad on his head by brick as a result of which Havildar Chandrahas Prasad fell down. Radhe Mohan Mishra @ Radhu @ Churi Baba, who was one of the leaders of the mob, ordered to kill the injured Havildar Chandrahas Prasad and to snatch the arms. On receiving the said command of the leader of the mob, Santosh Rana, Deepak Rana and others started assaulting the police officials. It has further been mentioned that others also started throwing bricks and stones injuring the police officials. It has further been mentioned in the F.I.R. that the persons tried to snatch S.L.R. rifle. Thereafter, police started taking action and as a result of which three round firings have been resorted to by the police. It has further been mentioned that others also started throwing bricks and stones injuring the police officials. It has further been mentioned in the F.I.R. that the persons tried to snatch S.L.R. rifle. Thereafter, police started taking action and as a result of which three round firings have been resorted to by the police. The injured police personnels were sent for treatment to the hospital. 3. On the basis of the aforementioned facts Giridih (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 152 of 2005, for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 325, 307, 353, 332, 333, 337, 338, 379, 511, 427, 604 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. 4. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 325, 307, 353, 332, 333, 337, 338, 379, 511, 427, 604 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The case was committed to the Court of sessions since the offence under sections 307 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code are triable by the Court of Sessions. 6. At the time of framing of charge, a petition was filed under section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating therein that no offence under sections 333 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made and there is nothing in the case diary, which can suggest that the offence under these two sections are made out. It has further been submitted that since from perusal of the case diary there is no material to proceed against the petitioners for the offence under sections 333 and 307 of the Indian penal Code, the learned trial Court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order dated 20.05.2013, rather the learned Court below should have remitted back the case for trial to the Magistrate as because the other sections of the Indian Penal Code mentioned in the charge sheet are triable by the Court of Magistrate. It has also been stated that the impugned order dated 20.05.2013 is also bad and without any reason. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners under sections 333 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, the matter cannot be remitted back to the learned Magistrate. Thus, the impugned order suffers from no illegality. 8. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioners under sections 333 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, the matter cannot be remitted back to the learned Magistrate. Thus, the impugned order suffers from no illegality. 8. I have heard the parties and perused the record. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. deals with discharge. It provides that if, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the parties, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, then the accused shall be discharged. Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. deals with framing of charge. Section 228(1)(a) provides that after considering the records, documents submitted in terms of section 227 of the Cr.P.C., if the Judge is of opinion that the offence committed is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, then he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Magistrate for trial. 9. Prayer of the petitioner is that since there is nothing in the case diary to frame charge under sections 333 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and since the other sections are not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Court below should have remitted back the matter for trial to the Magistrate. 10. From the perusal of the impugned order, I find that nowhere the learned Judge has mentioned as to what was the material on record to frame charge for the offence under sections 333 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge merely on the ground that there was an act of assault and deterring the police officials to dispose of the lawful duties by them, has passed the impugned order. Nowhere from the impugned order one can get as to what was the material available in the case diary basing on which charge can be framed under sections 333 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Nowhere from the impugned order one can get as to what was the material available in the case diary basing on which charge can be framed under sections 333 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. I feel that the learned Judge was swayed by the “place of occurrence” “nature of occurrence” and the fact of “maintenance of law and order” and not on the material on record and the ingredients of sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. 11. I find that the impugned order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-VII, Giridih is absolutely cryptic in nature which cannot be justified. 12. Since the impugned order is absolutely cryptic in nature, I set aside the impugned order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-VII, Giridih, in S.T. No. 430 of 2007 and remand the matter back to the Court below to pass a reasoned order considering the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and come to a finding on the basis of materials available in the case diary. 13. This revision application stands allowed.