[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 322/2008 SARMAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE: 25.04.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Biri Singh for the accused-petitioners. Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Public Prosecutor for the State. **** The present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order impugned dated 18.03.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 66/2007, whereby charges for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 326, 326/34, 307 and 307/34 IPC have been framed against the accused-petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that injured himself has not named the accused against which charges have been framed and the petitioner No.1 Sarman is 72 years old and the allegations levelled against the petitioners are per se illegal. As per the injury report, injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and, therefore, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out against the accused-petitioners. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor referred the impugned order and also referred the medical report given by the doctors who have opined [2] that injury sustained on the left eye resulted in fracture and the same was dangerous to life. It is also contended that though the injured has not named accused Balvir, but as per the statements of other witnesses, this injury attributed to accused Balvir on the instigation of accused Sarman. I have heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have also carefully gone through the impugned charge order dated 18.03.2008 passed by the Court below. There was sufficient material available before the trial Court to frame the charges for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 326, 326/34, 307 and 307/34 IPC against the accused-petitioners. Therefore, the order impugned dated 18.03.2008 framing charges against the accused-petitioners for the aforesaid offences requires no interference as I find no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the order impugned dated 18.03.2008. Consequently, the criminal revision petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/