JUDGMENT V.N. Mehrotra, J. - This revision has been filed against the judgment dated 3.12.1981 by Sri P.N. Lal, Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, setting aside the order dated 7.2.1981 by Sri R.L. Soni, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that it was alleged that the present revisionist had caused knife injuries to two persons, as a result of which they had committed an offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code on 26.9.1977. The police investigated the case and charge sheet under Section 324 Indian Penal Code was submitted against the accused persons on 30.9.1980. The accused persons filed an application before the Magistrate concerned praying that the accused be discharged as the charge-sheet was submitted by the police after the expiry of period of limitation provided under Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code. The matter remained pending before the learned Magistrate. It appears that the application was moved before him by the A.P.O on 20.1.1981 alleging that the material on record revealed and made out a case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The A.P.O. requested that the matter be adjourned for arguments and the case be committed to the court of Sessions. Ultimately, on 7.2.1981 the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order observing that as the charge-sheet has been submitted after the expiry of period of limitation and no application for condoning the delay was moved by the prosecution, hence it was time barred and cognizance could not be legally taken. He accordingly, dropped the proceedings and discharged the accused persons. 3. The prosecution filed a revision against this order before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. It was allowed by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge Muzaffarnagar, as mentioned earlier. The learned Addl., District Judge directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to consider the application moved by the prosecution alleging that the case was one under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. It was observed that the learned Magistrate had not considered this application on merits. 4. It was allowed by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge Muzaffarnagar, as mentioned earlier. The learned Addl., District Judge directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate to consider the application moved by the prosecution alleging that the case was one under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. It was observed that the learned Magistrate had not considered this application on merits. 4. In this revision it has been contended on behalf of the applicants revisionist that as in the case police had submitted a charge-sheet under Section 324 Indian Penal Code after the expiry of the period of limitation as provided under Section 468 Indian Penal Code i.e., beyond the period of three years from the date of the offence, so the learned Magistrate should if have dropped the proceedings and discharged the accused for this reason alone. It has also been contended that the prosecution did not move any application for condonation of delay in filling the charge-sheet but subsequently much after the applicants had moved an application for dropping the proceedings an application was moved mentioning that the case was under Section 307 Indian Penal Code by the A.P.O. It is asserted that the case was actually under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and it could not be said that the case was under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, hence the order by the learned Magistrate was just and legal. 5. I have heard the counsel for the applicants and the State and have also perused the record which has been called. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that the police had submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Section 324 Indian Penal Code. It is also not disputed that under Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code the period of limitation provided in such a case was three years only but the charge-sheet was submitted beyond that period. The prosecution did not move any application for condining the delay in filling the charge-sheet beyond the period of limitation. The Magistrate should have straight away refused to take cognizance of the offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and should have dropped the proceedings under Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code, instead he kept the matter pending, even though the accused persons moved the application making that prayer. The Magistrate should have straight away refused to take cognizance of the offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and should have dropped the proceedings under Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code, instead he kept the matter pending, even though the accused persons moved the application making that prayer. Later on the A.P.O. filed an application mentioning that the material on record showed that the case was under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, it appears that relevant documents were produced before the Magistrate before the order dated 7.2.1981 was passed. The learned Magistrate heard both the parties before passing that order. 7. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate did not consider the relevant facts before passing the impugned order. It is true that he did not specifically reject the application moved by the prosecution to consider the case to he. one under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. It would have been better if the learned Magistrate had passed a specific order on that application. However, even now it cannot be said that the case was actually one under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. The medical reports have been filed in the case. These indicate that one of the injured had received only one knife on his abdomon the x-ray report indicated that there was no radiological abnormality. It cannot be said that this injury was, prima facie, grievous or dangerous to life. According to the prosecution case one of the accused persons caught hold of the victim while the other accused hit him on the abdomen with his knife. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in case the applicants had any intention to kill the victim, the number of injuries in such a case would have been much larger. This argument is not without merit. The medical evidence shows that the other victim received only one injury which was on a non-vital part of the body and was simple in nature. Considering these facts it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer was wrong in submitting charge-sheet under Section 324 Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. 8. Apart from the above mentioned facts, this occurrence had taken place more than 13 years earlier. It will now not be proper to send back the case to the Magistrate for retrying the accused persons. 8. Apart from the above mentioned facts, this occurrence had taken place more than 13 years earlier. It will now not be proper to send back the case to the Magistrate for retrying the accused persons. It will in fact, be unfair and unjust to them. 9. Considering all these facts I am of the opinion that the order by the learned Magistrate cannot be said to be illegal or unjust. In the circumstances the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not right in setting aside that order. This revision should in the circumstances be allowed. 10. In the result the revision is allowed. 11. The order by the Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar dated 3.12.1981 is set aside.