JUDGMENT 1. ON the basis of an information lodged by one Tharpa Nandi of Mouza Salgaria, Gopi ballavpur P. S. case dated 13/7/1977 under sections 147/447/427/324 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the accused petitioner. They were duly arrested and released on bail by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jhargram. Before the submission of the charge sheet the investigating Officer filed a Petition on 6/8/1977 praying for adding section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to the First Information report. The learned Magistrate did not allow this prayer holding that there was no provision under the code of Criminal Procedure to add a new section to the original First Information report. Thereafter on 18/11/1977 the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners under sections 147/447/ 327/307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. ON 18/11/1977 accused petitioners filed a petition praying for deleting section 307 of the Indian Penal Code from the charge sheet. The learned Magistrate after hearing both sides did not accede to the prayer of the accused. petitioners and committed the ease to the court of Sessions. This order has been, impugned in this Rule. This case brings to light a seriour problem which has arisen, because of haphazard orders of commitment which are being passed by learned Magistrates resulting in large accumulations of Sessions trials in the different Districts of West Bengal. In some Districts such as Burdwan and Murshidabad it might take a couple of years to clear up the pending arrears of Sessions cases. The solution to the problem lies in the hands of the learned Magistrates and the Sessions Judges. 3. THE learned Magistrates, are not expected to act as rubber stamps, and follow blindly the charge sheets submitted by the police. They must scrutinise the materials on record before making up their minds whether it is a Sessions triable case or a case which can be tried by themselves, and should not accept the charge sheet on their face value in each and every case. This caution must be exercised particularly in cases under sections 307 and 356 of the Indian Penal Code which form the bulk of Pending Sessions trials. 4. AFTER an order of commitment has been passed there should be a second screening by the trial judge at the time or framing of charges. This caution must be exercised particularly in cases under sections 307 and 356 of the Indian Penal Code which form the bulk of Pending Sessions trials. 4. AFTER an order of commitment has been passed there should be a second screening by the trial judge at the time or framing of charges. The materials on record must be scrutinised with some amount of labour and charges should be framed under S. 228 (1) (b) of the Code only when the learned Judge, is definitely of the opinion that it is a Sessions triable case. In the instant, case, it is alleged that a prima facie case under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out and accordingly, the learned Magistrate committed the accused petitioners to the court of Sessions. If the learned Magistrate had taken the trouble of scrutinizing the injury report he would have found that it was a case of simple injury, not in a vital part of the body, which by no stretch of imagination can be brought in under the provisions of section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. WE accordingly allow the application, make the Rule absolute and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate 18/11/1977 committing the accused petitioners to the court of Sessions. The learned Magistrate will proceed with the case himself from the stage reached prior to the passing of the impugned order. 6. THE Registrar Appellate Side is directed to circulate copies of this judgment to the Sessions judges and the Chief judicial Magistrates of the different districts who in their turn will advise the judicial officers under them to follow the guide lines set out herein.