IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56058 of 2007 1. MD.SAHAB @ SAHAB KHAN, SON OF SANZOHAKHAN. 2. MD. BAKAR, SON OF SAMSU JOHA 3. FAJAL HAQUE, SON OF LATE JAHAJI MIYA 4. MD. ALI IMAM, SON OF LATE ANUL HAQUE 5. AASIK, SON OF LATE NARI JAN 6. MD. MADARAN, SON OF MD. AASIK 7. SUAB, SON OF LATE QUAYUM 8. MD. SHAHID, SON OF LATE NVIJAN 9. MD. WAHID, SON OF LATE NAVIJAN 10.BHUTTO, SON OF ALI IMAM 11.MD. JAFFAR IMAM, SON OF ALI IMAM ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMIRABAD (SAIDABAD), P.S. BIKRAM (RANITALAB), DISTRICT PATNA. ---- PETITIONERS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 3 25.3.2010 Heard the parties. The Criminal Revision No. 885 of 2005 was filed against the order dated 17.10.2005 by which cognizance was taken under Sections 147, 149 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. While hearing the criminal revision application the Sessions Judge, Patna called for the records. However, the order was not transmitted and the records were only received very late. In the mean time, it appears that charges were framed on 1.6.2006 under Sections 341, 504, 325/149 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court below ought not to have interfered with the order of cognizance and directed that the Court conducting the trial should keep in mind whether any offence is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or not while taking the evidence and altering charges if necessary. In the revisional order, the Court has relied on the injury report to say that an offence is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code merely because there was a grievous injury on the wrist of one of the injured persons would not by itself constitute an 2 offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. To constitute an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code the manner of the occurrence, the intention of the parties and the nature of the injury have all to be taken into account. This Court would be committing a further mistake and complicating the matter by interfering with the order dated 2.8.2007 and as such this Court leaves the entire matter in the hands of the Trial Court to consider in its wisdom while conducting the trial whether any offence is actually made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code considering the fact that the order under challenge was passed on 2.8.2007 and this matter is being heard on 25.3.2010 after a considerable gap of time. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)