ORDER S.K. Chawla, J. 1. This is a revision by an accused directed against an order of his re-trial. 2. The applicant/accused Babu Singh was convicted by J.M.F.C., Bhind of the offence under Section 325, Indian Penal Code on the finding that he had on 17-11-1982 at about 9 A.M. caused injury to the nose of one Chotelal (P.W.1), which was a grievous injury. The sentence inflicted was a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, simple imprisonment for 6 months. It was further directed that Rs. 500/- out of the fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Chotelal as compensation. Aggrieved by that Judgment, the accused filed an appeal in Court of Session, Bhind. Shri R.P. Dubey, IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhind, who heard the appeal, by Judgment dated 4-10-1990, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 325, Indian Penal Code but remanded the case to the trial Court for re-trial for an offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. It was directed that after the framing of charge under Section 326, Indian Penal Code against the accused, both the parties shall be given opportunity to adduce evidence again and thereafter the case shall be decided afresh by the trial Court on merits. It is against that order of remand of the case for re-trial, that accused has now come to this Court in revision. 3. In the impugned Judgment the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has observed that Chotelal (P. W. 1) in his report (Ex. P-1) had stated that accused Babu Singh had bitten his nose by teeth. This was also the police statement of Chotelal. A reference to police statement was perhaps made by the Judge for the limited purpose of considering the matter about charge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge further observed that Chotelal in his testimony before the Court had also deposed that accused Babu Singh had thrown him down on the ground and bitten his nose by teeth. Even Chotelals wife Mst. Devi (P.W. 4) had deposed that she saw the nose of her husband, which had been bitten by teeth. The learned Judge observed that the police ought to have filed a challan against the accused for an offence under Section 326. Indian Penal Code. Even if the police filed a challan for an offence under Section 325. Devi (P.W. 4) had deposed that she saw the nose of her husband, which had been bitten by teeth. The learned Judge observed that the police ought to have filed a challan against the accused for an offence under Section 326. Indian Penal Code. Even if the police filed a challan for an offence under Section 325. Indian Penal Code, the learned trial Magistrate should have applied his mind and should have framed charge under Section 326. Indian Penal Code in place of Section 325. The names of A.P.P. and the defence counsel were not recorded in the order sheet by the trial Magistrate on the date when charge was framed by him against the accused. Hence it appeared that the trial Magistrate had. without hearing either the A.P.P. or the defence counsel and without applying his own mind, framed the charge under Section 325. Indian Penal Code just because the police had filed the challan for that offence. The material disclosed in the case justified the framing of charge under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Magistrate had committed another illegality inasmuch as he had not sentenced the accused to any substantive sentence of imprisonment but had merely fined him Rs. 1,000/-. It was mandatory to have inflicted substantive sentence of imprisonment on the accused for the offence under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. Considering all these alleged illegalities, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned Judgment, while setting aside conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 325. Indian Penal Code, remanded the case for re-trial of the accused for an offence under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. 4. Shri S.P.P. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the accused/applicant, contended that the alleged incident was said to have taken place on 17-11-1982. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned Judgment dated 4-10-1990 i.e., after about 8 years of the alleged incident, had directed re-trial of the accused, which was nothing short of harassment of the accused. The accused will have to again run the gauntlet of a fresh trial, which may take some more years for decision. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to certain pieces of evidence to contend that offence under Section 326. Indian Penal Code was not really made out. In this connection, the evidence of Dr. The accused will have to again run the gauntlet of a fresh trial, which may take some more years for decision. The learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to certain pieces of evidence to contend that offence under Section 326. Indian Penal Code was not really made out. In this connection, the evidence of Dr. D. P. Shrivastava (P. W. 7) was placed for consideration, in which it was stated that Chotelal had sustained a lacerated wound 1"x 1" x bone deep on the right nostril. It was contended that the description of the wound as lacerated wound contraindicated that teeth were used to cause the injury. It was further pointed out that the doctor stated that the nose injury had disfigured the face and hence it was a grievous injury. The doctor, it was pointed out, did not say that the disfiguration was permanent. It could not therefore be said that the injury was grievous. As such, the offence under Section 326. Indian Penal Code was not made out. There was no justification for directing re-trial of the accused for the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. The appeal should be directed to be heard on merits, for in that situation the accused will have the chance of securing an acquittal or at the worst, his conviction might be maintained and he may be required to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, which he has already paid in the trial Court after its Judgment. The accused should be spared of the agony arid ordeal of a fresh trial. 5. Shri D.R. Sihare, learned counsel for non-applicant/State could not bring himself to support the impugned appellate Judgment directing re-trial. 6. It needs to be emphasized that the power of ordering re-trial should be sparingly used and only for grave reasons. The order of re-trial has the effect of wiping out from the record the earlier proceedings and exposes an accused to another trial which may afford the prosecution an opportunity to rectify the infirmities disclosed in the earlier trial. A reference may here be made to the Supreme Court decision in Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1963 SC 1531 . A reference may here be made to the Supreme Court decision in Ukha Kolhe v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1963 SC 1531 . The following observations in that case are pertinent : "An order for retrial of a criminal case is made in exceptional cases, and not unless the appellate Court is satisfied that the Court trying the proceeding had no jurisdiction to try it or that the trial was vitiated by serious illegalities or irregularities or on account of misconception of the nature of the proceedings and on that account in substance there had been no real trial or that the Prosecutor or an accused was, for reasons over which he had no control, prevented from leading or tendering evidence material to the charge, and in the interests of justice the appellate Court deems it appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the accused should be put on his trial again. An order of retrial wipes out from the record the earlier proceeding, and exposes the person accused to another trial which affords the prosecutor an opportunity to rectify the infirmities disclosed in the earlier trial." 7. It is seen in the present case that the police itself filed a challan against the accused under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. That did not of course prevent the Magistrate from framing a proper charge. The fact remains that the learned Magistrate also framed the charge under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. The offence even under Section 326, Indian Penal Code was triable by the Magistrate himself. This was not a case where the Magistrate was trying to usurp the jurisdiction of the Court of Session and trying himself a case exclusively triable by the Court of Session. It is understandable that in that situation, the trial by the Magistrate would have been vitiated and an order of commitment on a charge exclusively triable by the Court of Session could have been passed by the higher Court. See Sanmukhsingh v. Emperor in AIR 1945 Sind 125 and Matukdhari Singh v. Janardan in AIR 1966 SC 356. That was not the situation in the present case. Not only the learned Magistrate in the present case framed a charge under Section 325, Indian Penal Code but even the State never felt aggrieved with that charge. See Sanmukhsingh v. Emperor in AIR 1945 Sind 125 and Matukdhari Singh v. Janardan in AIR 1966 SC 356. That was not the situation in the present case. Not only the learned Magistrate in the present case framed a charge under Section 325, Indian Penal Code but even the State never felt aggrieved with that charge. The State did not challenge the correctness of the charge under Section 325, Indian Penal Code even before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the impugned Judgment has candidly observed that counsel for neither parties during the course of arguments before him raised any objection as to the charge. If that was so the learned Addl. Sessions Judge went clearly out of the way in directing something to be done which the party did not, and could not have asked to be done. Thus the State itself did not and could not have asked for framing of charge against the accused under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, when it had acquiesced to the framing of the charge against the accused under Section 325, Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Magistrate, constituting an implied discharge of the accused of offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. The State could have gone in revision under Section 398 Criminal Procedure Code against that order of implied discharge, but it did not. Even before the Addl. Sessions Judge the State did not challenge the correctness of the charge under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances what was not prayed for and could not have been asked for by the State; namely, framing of charge under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, could not have been directed by the Court itself in the manner the learned Addl. Sessions Judge sought to do. A re-trial is after all not a weapon to harass an accused or a sort of a bounty on the prosecution to enable it to do something which did not and could not have been asked for by it. The reasoning employed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to direct re-trial was, to say the least, perverse and injudicious. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this revision is allowed. The impugned Judgment of IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhind in Cr.A. No. 38/89 dated 4-10-1990 directing re-trial of accused/applicant for the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code is set aside. The reasoning employed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge to direct re-trial was, to say the least, perverse and injudicious. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this revision is allowed. The impugned Judgment of IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhind in Cr.A. No. 38/89 dated 4-10-1990 directing re-trial of accused/applicant for the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code is set aside. It is further directed that the said Criminal appeal shall now be re-heard and disposed of expeditiously according to law. The accused/applicant Babu Singh shall appear before IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhind for further proceedings in the appeal on 2nd March, 1993 without any notice from that Court.