S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) A charge-sheet for attempt to murder and rioting etc. , was filed by the police in the Court of JMFC Mauganj, district Rewa against the non-applicants. The trial Magistrate committed the case in the Court of Session, which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 24/84. The trial was made over to the second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa. The Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 25. 8. 1984 felt that no offence triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions is prima facie made out and be therefore, transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 228 (1) (k) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Aggrieved by that order the State has filed the present revision. ( 2 ) THE prosecution allegations briefly stated are that on 20. 8. 1984, while Raghunath Singh along with others had been going on the scooter, non-applicant Baijnath stopped him. At that very time there was a gun fire. One of the non-applicants Harivansh is said to have exhorted MARO SALE KO. An injury was said to have been inflicted by sharp edged weapon on the head of Raghunath Singh by non-applicant Motilal. Non-applicants Chandra Shekhar and Narayan Prasad were also present who were armed with lathis. Non applicant Ramashrya also was present. N. As. Reghuwar Singh and Laxmi who were holding guns were seen going away. ( 3 ) ON examination of Raghunath Singh who had lodged the first information report, an incised injury was found on his head. This was besides the other injuries on other parts of the body. Umesh Kumar sb Raghunath Singh who was accompanying the latter, also had an injury. These injuries to Raghunath Singh and Umesh Kumar were simple. In the report lodged by Raghunath Singh, there is a mention that there is some land dispute with Chandra Shekhar Singh and Raghuwar Singh. During investigation guns were allegedly seized from non-applicants Laxmi and Raghuwar Singh. ( 4 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order has observed that none of the injuries to Raghunath Singh were grievous or dangerous to life. He further observed that it has not come out in the statement of Raghunath Singh as to aiming at whom the gun was fired. ( 4 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order has observed that none of the injuries to Raghunath Singh were grievous or dangerous to life. He further observed that it has not come out in the statement of Raghunath Singh as to aiming at whom the gun was fired. He thus felt that prima facie offence under Section 317 I. P. C. is not made out. He further observed that prima facie it appears that the accused were more than five in number who were armed with lathis and one of them was having a GANDASA, which were dangerous weapons. He on that reasoning found that prima facie the offences under Sections 148, 341, 333, 324, and 506 Part II I. P. C are made out. According to him non-applicant Motilal had inflicted a blow by a sharp edged weapon and so an offence under Section 324 I. P. C is made out against him. Non-applicant Baijnath had us assaulted by lathi and so he would be liable under Section 323 I. P. C. while the others would be liable for these offences with the aid of Section 149 I. P. C. As against Narayan Prasad, since he is said to have voluntarily caused hurt to Umesh Kumar, he would prima facie be liable under Section 323 I. P. C. ( 5 ) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, on a consideration of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code have laid down as follow; Reading the two provisions together in just a position, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in a sensitive balance whether the facts if proved would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. Nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused. It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weight in a sensitive balance whether the facts if proved would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not. The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at the stage of deciding the matter under section 227 or section 228 of the Code. At that stage the Court is not to see whether there is sufficient around for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to cell in his conviction. ' ( 6 ) IN State of Maharashtra v. Bairam Bama Patel and others,2 their Lordships have laid down that to justify a conviction under Section 307 it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances and may even in some casts, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wound. The action makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended be any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would he liable under Section 307 I. P. C. What has to be seen i, whether the act irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. An attempt in order t. be criminal need not be the per ultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. ( 7 ) THE Court below has merely considered the injuries which have been found on the person of Raghunath Singh and Umesh Kumar. Because these injuries were simple, he seems to have felt that an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. is not prima facie made out. ( 7 ) THE Court below has merely considered the injuries which have been found on the person of Raghunath Singh and Umesh Kumar. Because these injuries were simple, he seems to have felt that an offence under Section 307 I. P. C. is not prima facie made out. This is quite contrary to the law and the decision of their Lordships in Balram Bama Patils case (supra ). Assuming that there was no evidence as on whom was the aim of the gun taken, the fact remains that there was a gun fire which did not cause injury to any of the victims, but the absence of injury itself, at least at the stage of charge was not enough to negative the prosecution plea with regard to a charge under Section 307 I. P. C. having been made out. Yet another fact which had to be taken into account was that a blow by a sharp edged weapon had been inflicted on the head of Raghunath Singh According to the allegations even in the first information report, there were land disputes between the parties. There is evidence of some of the witnesses in their statements to the police that there was extortion by some or the other accused for committing the murder. Even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the accused had a common object. Learned Additional Sessions Judge does not seem to have considered the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation which had been filed along with the charge sheet. ( 8 ) I may observe that this is not the stage when this Court could enter into maticulous consideration of the evidence and materials. See: Mohd Akbar Dar and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others,3 that offence is ultimately made out can best be determined after a complete trial and the evidence. From the evidence and the material I am satisfied that at this stage there is a prim a facie case even for an offence of attempt to murder and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 25. 8. 1984 of the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. The Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. ( 9 ) CONSEQUENTLY this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 25. 8. 1984 of the Additional Sessions Judge is set aside. The Additional Sessions Judge shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The record of the case shall be sent by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the concerned Additional Sessions Judge. Revision, allowed. .