IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1417 of 2009 1. Ganesh Mahto, son of Late Sahendra Mahto. 2. Banti (Banti Devi), wife of Ganesh Mahto. 3. Akhilesh Kumar, son of Ganesh Mahto. (All are residents of village-Gulab Patti, Parsauni, P.S.- Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur) ……………Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Shail Kumari Devi, wife of Mahasan Mahto, resident of village-Gulabpatti, Parsauni, P.S.-Sahebganj, District- Muzaffarpur) ………..Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 21.10.2011 The accused-petitioners have preferred this revision application against the order dated 1.08.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.I, Muzaffarpur in S.Tr.No.313/09 by which the petition dated 1.07.2009 filed on behalf of the accused under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from perusal of the case diary, no offence under Section 308 of the I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners and the other offences are triable by the Magistrate. Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, the learned counsel for the State submits that it appears from the impugned order that there is sufficient material on the record for 2 constituting the offence under Section 308 of the I.P.C. and other minor Sections of the I.P.C. and as such, no interference is required by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the material on the record and the case diary and has found that there is sufficient material on the record for constituting the offence under Section 308 of the I.P.C. and other minor Sections of the I.P.C. Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is dismissed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)