Charge-framing order must disclose material basis; cryptic order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration.

An order framing charges was set aside because it was cryptic and did not disclose the material basis for proceeding against the revisionist. The court held that, without clear indication of the evidence or material relied on, the charge-framing order could not be sustained in its existing form. The matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh hearing on the question of framing charges and for a new reasoned order after considering the parties' submissions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order framing charges was sustainable when it did not disclose the material basis for proceeding against the revisionist, and whether the matter required remand for reconsideration.

Analysis: The impugned order was found to be cryptic and did not ly indicate what material was available against the revisionist for framing of charges. In such circumstances, the order could not be sustained in its existing form. The proper course was to set aside that part of the order and require the trial court to hear the parties afresh on the question of framing of charges and then pass a fresh order.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded to the extent that the charge-framing order was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on framing of charges.

---