IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1658 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: July 29, 2011 Tarlochan Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Balbir Singh @ Beera & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Har Naresh Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed in challenge to order dated 1.7.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali) vide which order dated 18.4.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, SAS Nagar (Mohali) has been set aside and the case has been sent back to the Court of Magistrate for trial. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondents were being tried for commission of offence under Sections 325, 323, 324, 34 IPC by the Court of Magistrate. The case relates to the year 2000. Crl. Revision No.1658 of 2011 [2] After 11 prosecution witnesses had been examined, while considering the testimony of PW-7, Dr. S.N. Mathuria, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate vide Order dated 18.4.2011 concluded that in view of the nature of injury and the seat of injury viz. on the forehead, commission of offence under Section 307 IPC is, prima facie, disclosed which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. In such circumstances, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 3. The Court of Sessions while taking into account the stage of the case as also the fact that nature and seat of injury per-se would not be sufficient to conclude that prima facie case under Section 307 IPC is made out, has sent back the case to the Court of Magistrate with direction that trial be continued. 4. I have heard the learned counsel. 5. It is not in dispute that when injured Tarlochan Singh (petitioner) fell down after sabbal blow on his forehead, no other injury was caused with kirpan or sabbal on any vital part of his body. 6. The Additional Sessions Judge has concluded that when the facts and circumstances of the case are considered in totality, prima facie, Section 307 IPC is not attracted. For the said purpose, reliance has been placed on Atma Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1980 Criminal Law Journal 1225 and Jai Narain Mishra vs. Crl. Revision No.1658 of 2011 [3] State of Bihar, 1972 Criminal Appeal Reporter 19 (SC). 7. I do not find any legal defect in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Relevant facts and circumstances have been considered to conclude that case is triable by the Court of Magistrate. No ground for interference, in revisional jurisdiction, is made out. 8. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) July 29, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?