IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1 of 2010 1. Mohan Yadav S/O Madeshwar Yadav R/O Vill.- Sipaya Tola, P.S.- Bishambharpur, Distt.- Gopalganj 2. Ramashankar Yadav S/O Madeshwar Yadav R/O Vill.- Sipaya Tola, P.S.- Bishambharpur, Distt.- Gopalganj 3. Madeshwar Yadav S/O Guljar Yadav R/O Vill.- Sipaya Tola, P.S.- Bishambharpur, Distt.- Gopalganj Versus 1. The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 02. 22.12.2011 The accused petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 330 of 1997 by which prosecution has been allowed to frame charge under Sections 326 & 324 of the I.P.C. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the charges were framed against the petitioner for the offences under Section 307/34, 447 & 323 of the I.P.C. and thereafter evidence on behalf of both the parties has been adduced and the case was fixed for argument. In the meantime, the prosecution filed a petition dated 14.10.2009 stating therein that there is sufficient material on the record to frame charge under Sections 324 & 326 of I.P.C. and it has been allowed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that under Section 222 Cr.P.C. there is provision that 2 conviction can be made in the lesser section if the charge is not proved against the major section of the I.P.C. Since the petitioners have been facing trial under Section 307 of the IPC, which is a major section the petitioners can be convicted under the lesser sections if the charge is not proved under Section 307 of I.P.C. The petition has only been filed to delay the trial. The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the charge was framed against the petitioners under Section 307 of I.P.C. also. Section 307 is a major section of the IPC and if the charge is not proved under Section 307 of IPC, the petitioners/accused can be held guilty under Section 324 & 326 of I.P.C., a lesser offence as provided under Section 222(20 of Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that after framing of charge and completion of evidence the case was fixed for argument. In my opinion, there is no necessity to frame the charge under Sections 324 & 326 of I.P.C. at this stage as the petitioners are already facing trial under Section 307 of I.P.C. which is a major section and certainly the offence under Sections 324 & 326 of I.P.C. is a minor section than Section 307 of I.P.C. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the 3 impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. Let the trial of the case be expedited in accordance with law. In the result, this application is allowed. Mkr. ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)