Judgment :- 1. The petitioner herein (the accused in C. C. No. 48 of 1963 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Perambra) had been convicted under S.324,1. P. C., for injuring the right thumb of P. W.1 in an attempt to cut the latter's throat with a chisel. P.W. 1, who is an Engineer in the State Service, was travelling in a jeep which was stopped by the accused who wanted to do away with the officer thinking him to be responsible for the acquisition of his property without immediate payment of compensation. Though he pleaded not guilty to the charge under S.324, I. P. C., the Magistrate found the charge proved and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonments for six. months. An appeal preferred by the accused before the Sessions Judge failed. Hence this petition for revision of his conviction and sentence. 2. The fact of his attack on P. W.1 has been concurrently found by the Courts below on appreciation of the evidence on record. On perusing the judgment and hearing counsel, I do not find any error in the appreciation of the evidence made by the Sub Magistrate, which has been accepted by the Sessions Judge. The conviction must therefore stand. I do not think in the circumstances of this case that the sentence awarded is heavy. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed hereby. 3. The prosecution case, even as stated in the First Information given to the Police and in the charge-sheet, is that the accused attempted to kill P. W.1, a Junior Engineer, by cutting his throat with a chisel, though the officer had fortunately been able to wrench the chisel out of the accused's hand and to save himself. To me the averments appear to make a clear case of attempt to murder. Though facts making out an attempt to murder are clearly put forth in the F. I. Statement, F. I. R. and the charge-sheet, no charge was laid for that offence under S.307, I. P. C. The charge laid was only for hurt under S.324, I. P. C. The result is that a case triable only by a Court of Session was laid before a Sub Magistrate. Nor is this the only case in which the Police had failed to put the charge for the proper offence before the proper Court. Nor is this the only case in which the Police had failed to put the charge for the proper offence before the proper Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 336 of 1965, disposed of today by another judgment by me, the facts averred in the charge-sheet are that the 1st accused stabbed, with a dagger-knife ae,pdwI n P. W. 4 on his chest near the right arm-pit, P. W. 5 on his stomach below the left ribs and also P. W. 9 (a boy of 10 years) on his right upper elbow to penetrate 11/2" into the muscle. The stab injury on P. W. 5 was, according to the Medical Officer, a very serious injury. Other accused were also stated to have cut with chopper and scythe and beaten P. Ws. 4, 5, 7 and 9. Yet, the charge laid before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Meenachil, was under S.148,149, 341, 326 and 324, I.P.C. No charge against the 1st accused for attempt to murder was laid in that case. A stab in a vital part of the body, like the chest, with a lethal weapon like a dagger-knife, even if it did not result in killing the victim, may amount to an attempt to kill. A cut with a chopper on a chest just above nipple fracturing a rib may be a grievous hurt of a very serious nature. As observed by the Supreme Court in AIR. 1961 S.C.1698 "If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence." It is ununderstandable why the Police responsible for framing the charge-sheet have not laid the charge for the right offences before the right forum. The defect has to be rectified; and, to invite the attention in this regard, a copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Inspector-General of Police. 4. S.347, Crl. P.C., directs a Magistrate to commit the accused whenever be finds the case before him fit to be, tried by a Court of Session. This he must and ought to do on the nature of the case before him, and not on the Sections of the Penal Code put in the charge-sheet by the Police. In the case in which Crl. This he must and ought to do on the nature of the case before him, and not on the Sections of the Penal Code put in the charge-sheet by the Police. In the case in which Crl. Appeal No. 336 of 1965 arose, blood-stained instruments (a chopper and a coconut-scraper) are said to have been recovered from the scene of occurrence and produced in Court. The Magistrate does not appear to have sent them for chemical, examination. In the two instances mentioned above, facts sufficient to contribute attempts to murder, triable only by a Court of Session, appear to have been made out before the Magistrates. Yet, the Magistrates have not cared to commit the cases to Sessions. In my view, this is a dereliction of duty cast by S.347, Crl. P.C. The proceedings mentioned above disclose defect serious enough to be taken note of on the administrative side, for which a copy of this judgment will be placed before the learned judge in charge of General Administration and the learned Chief Justice. As stated already, another copy of this judgment will be forwarded to the Inspector-General of Police. Dismissed.