ORDER A.R. Tiwari, J. -- 1. This revision petition has been filed by the State against the order dated 11.2.1991 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T.No. 30/91, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to frame the charge under S. 307 IPC and transferred the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in accordance with S. 228 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure holding that instead charge under S. 324 IPC should be framed. The trial was directed accordingly. 2. The State is aggrieved by this order. It is contended on its behalf that there is sufficient material to frame the charge under S. 307 IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has, thus, erred in law in declining to frame the charge under S. 307 IPC. The learned counsel for the Non-applicants (accused) on the other hand, supports the order and contends that there is no material to frame the charge under S. 307 IPC and instead the direction about S. 324 IPC is correctly given. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. It is clear from the order that the allegation is to this effect that revolver was used in the incident as a weapon of assault and injury was caused on the neck of the injured person. In my view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge commits an error of law when he holds that the nature of injury in terms of S. 307 IPC cannot be inferred in the absence of X-ray report in this case and as such charge under Sec. 307 IPC could not be legally framed. It is pertinent to reproduce S. 227 and S. 228 of the Cr. P.C. which read as under :- "S.227 : If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. S.228 : (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried." 4. It is, therefore, clear that discharge is permissible only when the Judge' considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and this consideration is to rest on the record and the documents submitted therewith. On the other hand, the charge is to be framed if in the opinion of the judge there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. At this stage of framing of charge meticulous examination of the material is neither necessary nor warranted. It cannot be disputed and in fact not disputed that the injury itself, is not the sole criteria for such presumption. In AIR 1983 SC 305 (State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil and others) it is held as under :- "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 cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section." The aforesaid judgment is followed by this Court, in 1990 Criminal Law Reporters (MP) 128 (Ramvishwas v. The State of M.P.). The relevant portion is extracted below :- "Absence of injury in such surrounding circumstances would not throw the prosecution case out of the scope and ambit of section 300 IPC. Under clause fourthly if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury is likely to cause death and commits act without any excuse for incurring the risk 'of causing death or such injury as aforesaid, it amounts to murder. Illustration (d) to section 300 IPC explains such situation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State Shri Sharma referred State of Maharashtra v. Balaram Bama Patel & others (supra) for the submission that for an offence u/s. 307 IPC it is not necessary that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Therefore, in my opinion, the conviction of the appellant u/s. 307 IPC is well merited." 5. Applying the aforesaid tests, I hold that there is a reasonable ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 307 IPC also. It is, therefore, directed that Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the aforesaid Criminal Case was transferred will commit the case back to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court on receipt of the case shall frame the charge against the accused persons under section 307 IPC besides other charges as indicated and shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 6. The non-applicant/accused shall be free to raise all such objections as may be available to them at the time of final arguments in the case and can very well contend that absence of x-ray report consequential to the conduct of the injured person, is a material factor in their favour and the Court shall then consider this plea as also all other pleas in accordance with law at that stage. The order refusing to frame charge is evidently infirm on the visage of the record. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 11.2.91 is hereby set aside and this revision petition is allowed.