JUDGMENT The police has filed a challan against the applicant for an offence under section 304 IPC on the allegation that the applicant's sten gun, which was loaded, fired, as a result thereof Achutanand received injuries and subsequently died in the hospital. The challan was filed on 30.12.1989 under section 304 IPC. On 16.1.1990 charge was framed under section 304-A IPC. On 12.1.1991 the second respondent Chakrapani, brother of the deceased Achutanand, raised an objection for framing of the charge by the Magistrate under section 304-A IPC. The said objection raised by the second respondent was dismissed by the Magistrate on 11.1.1991, against which the second respondent, brother of the deceased, filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi contending that a charge under section 304 IPC should have been framed and by the impugned order dated 28.10.1991 the revision was allowed. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, when the police filed a challan under section 304 of the IPC, the Magistrate should not have framed a charge under section 304-A IPC, as the offence under section 304 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions and it should have been sent to the Court of Sessions for framing of charge. Consequently the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 11.1.1990, rejecting the objection of the second respondent and also the order dated 16.1.1991 framing charge against the applicant under section 304-A IPC and directed the Magistrate to send the entire case file to the Court of the Sessions. It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the material on record shows that only an offence under section 304-A IPC is made out against the applicant and, therefore, the trial Magistrate was justified, and within his jurisdiction, to frame a charge under section 304-A IPC. The scope and jurisdiction of the Magistrate regarding framing of charge is very limited, when the police has put up a challan for an offence which is triable by the Court of Sessions. In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India ( AIR 1978 SC 514 ) it has been held that it is not open to the committal Court to launch on a process of satisfying itself that a prima faice case has been made out on merits. In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India ( AIR 1978 SC 514 ) it has been held that it is not open to the committal Court to launch on a process of satisfying itself that a prima faice case has been made out on merits. The committal Magistrate has to look at the case with the limitation of ascertaining whether the case, as disclosed by the police report, appears to the Magistrate to show an offence triable solely by the Court of Sessions. If the facts set out in the police report indicates a commission of an offence which is triable by the Court of Sessions, the Magistrate has simply to commit the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. In this case, after the framing of charge by the Magistrate on 16.1.1990, the report of the Ballistic Expert was filed on 17.1.1990, which shows that the safety catch of the sten gun was in order. Reading of the FIR and the report of the. Ballistic Expert, it cannot be said that prima facie case is not made out for an offence which is not triable by the Court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge has not passed any order framing a charge under section 304 IPC what has been directed by the Additional Sessions Judge is that to send the matter to the Sessions Court It is not open to the applicant to argue before the Court of Sessions as to under what section charge could be framed. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, sidhi. Consequently, this revision fails and is dismissed.