ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - The opposite parties were charge sheeted by the police under Sections 307 IPC and 147 or 148, IPC. The case for the prosecution was that Om Prakash, the Petitioner, had built a chabutra at the door of his house. On 30-5-1964 at 7 or 7-30 a.m. the opposite parties came to that chabutra to demolish it. Hira and Jaswant were armed with guns, Gopi and Sobha were armed with pistols and the remaining persons carried spades for demolishing the chabutra. On arrival there the opposite parties who carried spades started demolishing the chabutra, while those armed with guns and pistols mounted guard nearby. When Om Prakash protested the opposite parties abused him and went on digging the Chabutra claiming that it is their parti. In the meantime Kamta Prasad, Smt. Jagrani, Dafedar, Chandra Bhan and Ram Bux arrived there and reasoned with the opposite parties and Om Prakash even suggested that the dispute might be referred to a Panchayat. Thereupon, Hira, Jaswant, Gopi and Sobha aimed their weapons at Om Prakash and fired. Om Prakash, however, managed to take cover behind a neem tree. Thereupon the former fired again and injured Kamta Prasad, Smt. Jagrani, Ram Bux and Dafedar and thereafter ran away. 2. The prosecution examined ten eye-witnesses, including the four injured persons, in support of its case. In addition it examined Dr. R.L. Nanda to prove that the injuries received by the four injured persons were caused by fire arms, at about the time stated by the eye witnesses. The learned Magistrate took the view (1) that as the injury reports of all the injured persons showed taat the wounds were caused by 'bird-shooting cartridges' which in the natural and ordinary course of events could not cause death (2) that the fire arms in question were not used with the intention or knowledge of the likelihood to cause death but simply with the intention to cause hurt and (3) that as no grievous hurt was caused, the case was fit to be tried u/s 324 IPC. He, therefore, discharged the opposite parties u/s 307 IPC and charged them u/s 324 IPC along with Section 147 or Section 148 IPC. 3. He, therefore, discharged the opposite parties u/s 307 IPC and charged them u/s 324 IPC along with Section 147 or Section 148 IPC. 3. The state went up in revision and the learned Additional District Magistrate (J) who heard it relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Nahar Singh v. State 1952 CriLJ 440 held that no revision lay against the order of discharge. He accordingly held that the revision was liable to fail on that ground alone. However, for the sake of completeness, as he described it--he dealt with the matter on merits also and agreeing with the learned Magistrate, he dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by that decision Om Prakash, the complainant, has come up in revision to this Court. 4. On behalf of the Applicant his learned Counsel, Sri N. Lal, challenged the correctness of both the findings of the learned Additional District Magistrate. So far as the first finding is concerned Sri Lal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Thakur Ram Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 911 and Ramekbal Tewary v. Madan Mohan Tewary Cr. Appeal No. 213 of 1964 D/-17-1-67 and digested in SC Notes, dt. 1-2-67 at serial No. 45. In both these cases the Supreme Court overruled the Full Bench decision in Nahar Singh (1). Consequently the first finding of the learned Additional District Magistrate can no longer be regarded as correct. 5. So far as the second finding is concerned, I am of the opinion that as the prosecution evidence detailed earlier in this judgment does not completely exclude a prima facie case u/s 307 IPC, the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Magistrate to the contrary cannot be sustained. Besides in a case in which fire arms are used in the circumstances stated above, it is always safer to commit the case to the court of Sessions, so that if the prosecution is able to make out a case under that section the culprits may not escape their due punishment. I, therefore, set aside that finding. The learned Judge who tries the case shall be free to arrive at his own findings on the basis of the evidence produced before me. 6. I, therefore, set aside that finding. The learned Judge who tries the case shall be free to arrive at his own findings on the basis of the evidence produced before me. 6. Thus for the reasons stated above I set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate and direct him to commit the opposite parties to the Court of Sessions u/s 307 IPC and Section 147 or Section 148 IPC.