JUDGMENT Applicants - accused Amarnath Kesharwani and others have preferred this revision - petition under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, against the order dated 6.3.1992, passed in Sessions Trial No. 76/92, by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, as per which, charges under sections 148, 307 read with section 149,332 and 294 of Indian Penal Code, have been framed. On behalf of the applicants-accused, it has mainly been submitted that the complainants Nandu and Devisingh had received simple injuries and that, the applicants had no intention of committing an attempt for murder and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has mechanically framed charges without applying his mind judiciously and, hence, the impugned order dated 6.3.1992, is . liable to be set aside. On behalf of the non-applicant/State of M.P., it has been submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, has committed no illegality in framing the charges against the applicants and that, from the material on record, prima facie case under section 307 of Indian Panal Code is also made out, besides the other sections in respect of which charges have been framed. After considering the F.I.R., medical reports of complainants Nandu and Devisingh and the statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation, in my opinion, the impugned order dated 6.3.1992, passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 76/92, as per which, he had framed charges under sections 148, 307 read with section 149, 332 and 294 of Indian Pt.:nal Code against the applicants-accused, on the basis of the material on record, calls for no interference, because no illegality has been committed in framing the aforesaid charges. It cannot be said that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, has not applied his mind judiciously at the time of framing of the charges, as has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants-accused. Besides the injury reports, the statements of the witnesses and the F.I.R. has also to be considered together the intention to the accused persons. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 6.3.1992, passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 76/92, as per which, charges have been framed against the applicants, calls for no interference, as there is no illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition filed on behalf of the applicants-accused, shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 6.3.1992, passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Sessions Trial No. 76/92, as per which, charges have been framed against the applicants, calls for no interference, as there is no illegality in the impugned order. The revision petition filed on behalf of the applicants-accused, shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. The interim order dated 28.4.1992, as per which, further proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 76/92 were stayed by this Court, shall stand vacated and the trial shall proceed according to law.