JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - This is an application in revision against an order dated 7th September, 1963, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, 'Mainpuri, setting aside the order of the Magistrate passed on July 30, 1963, and directing him to commit the accused persons to the court of session for trial of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 324, I. P. C. 2. During the course of the commitment proceedings against the twenty accused persons (the applicants before me) the Magistrate, after having examined the evidence which was led before him was of the view that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused persons could not be punished under Section 307, I. P. C.-an offence exclusively triable by a court of session and that the accused persons should be charged only for the offences punishable under Sees. 147, 148, 324 and 149, I. P. C. The matter went up in revision before the Additional District Magistrate, Mainpuri, and he was of the view that since one of the accused persons had used a pistol against one of the victims the charge framed against the accused persons should also be one under Section 307 I. P. C. He, therefore, directed the Magistrate to frame a charge Under Section 307, I. P. C. also and commit all the accused persons to the court of session. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the Deputy Government Advocate. From a perusal of the record it appears that the injuries caused to the victims of the offences were simple in nature. A country-made pistol was, no doubt, used from a close range but the injury caused was on the lower part of, the thigh only. The main question to be considered was about the corn on object of the unlawful assembly and till this stage there is nothing on the record to show that the common object of the unlawful assembly was to cause the death of any of the victims of the offences. The mere use of a country-made pistol on a non-vital part of the body from a close range will not make the offence to fall under Section 307, 1 P. C. In the circumstances the Lustrate was perfectly justified in framing a charge under Section 307, I. P. C. and not committing the to to the court of session. The mere use of a country-made pistol on a non-vital part of the body from a close range will not make the offence to fall under Section 307, 1 P. C. In the circumstances the Lustrate was perfectly justified in framing a charge under Section 307, I. P. C. and not committing the to to the court of session. The direction given by the Additional District 'Magistrate at that stage appeal to have no justification. 4. It was held in the Full Bench case of Nahar Singh v. State, AIR 1952 Allahabad 231 : 1952 A.L.J. 67 that where a person is accused by the complainant for a major offence and the court frames a charge for a minor offence it does not amount to a discharge because the case is proceeding against him on the same facts and the court of revision is not competent under Section 437, Cr. P. C. to direct commitment of the accused to the court of session in respect of the major offence. However, it was observed in that case that if in the course of the trial it appears to the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding that the case is one which ought to be tried by the court of session then he is at liberty under Section 347, Cr. P. C. to commit the accused to the court of session. 5. The result is that the revision application is allowed, the order of the Additional District Magistrate passed on 7th September, 1963, setting aside the order of the Magistrate passed on 30th July, 1963, is vacated and the order dated 30th July, 1963, passed by the Magistrate is restored. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial of the accused persons on the charges framed by him but if in the course of the trial it appears to him at any 'stage of the proceedings of the case that it is one which ought to be tried bi, the court of session then he is at liberty under Section 347, Cr. P. C. to commit the accused persons to the court of session.