JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the order dated 7.7.93 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior. It has arisen out of the following facts. An F.I.R. was lodged by the present applicant Suresh Chandra on 26.4.91 with the allegation that there was a dispute with respect to share in the house. The accused person, namely, Magan and his sons Pinki alias Neetesh and Banti alias Naveen threw cement flower pots on the petitioner Suresh Chandra and his son Rajeev from the First floor as a result of which Rajeev sustained injury. A case was registered u/s. 307/34 IPC against the accused persons. The case was committed sent to III Addl. Sessions Judge. The Third Additional Sessions Judge heard the parties and perused the record and through the impugned order held that no charge u/s 307 IPC could be framed on the material on record. The learned Court framed a charge u/s 325/34 and 323/34 IPC and the case was remanded to the C.J.M. Gwalior for further proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by this order the present revision has been preferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned Govt. Advocate and the learned counsel for the applicant contended that at the initial stage the learned Lower Court had to see prima facie as to whether a charge u/s 307 was to be framed or not. At that stage minute examination of the material need not to made. He placed reliance on 1989 JLJ 310 (State of M.P. v. Ramdeen and others) and argued that in that case also this Court observed that various factors had to be seen in order to find out that the offence made out. But those factors can be seen while determining the guilt of the accused, of course at the end of the trial, when both the parties have had full opportunity to adduce evidence. At the stage of framing charge a Court may find that an injury inflicted by the accused may have ended the life. The learned counsel contended that a charge should have been framed u/s 307 and in case the Court comes to the conclusion that no conviction is possible u/s 307 the Court could convict the accused under appropriate section. At the stage of framing charge a Court may find that an injury inflicted by the accused may have ended the life. The learned counsel contended that a charge should have been framed u/s 307 and in case the Court comes to the conclusion that no conviction is possible u/s 307 the Court could convict the accused under appropriate section. At this stage a prima facie charge u/s 307 was made out inasmuch there was a fracture and brain material was coming out as is evident from medical report. Learned Advocate for N. As contended that there was no intention to cause death inasmuch as flower pots were thrown and one of them fell on the head. There is nothing to show that the injury was dangerous to life. He also placed reliance on 1981 (I) MPWN (39 ) (Rajaram v. Kadori). I have considered the contentions raised before me by the learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the authorities relied upon by the parties. It cannot be disputed that u/s 228 Cr.P.C. the Law requires that if after consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted and after hearing the parties the Judge considers that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he may frame a charge against the accused and transfer the case to the C.J.M. and if the case is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. In the present case, the learned Court below has observed that from the material on record it appeared that the medical report does not show prima facie that the injuries received were dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature. It has, therefore, been observed that from the perusal of the F.I.R., Medical report and statements of witnesses prima facie a case u/s 307 was not made out. I have also perused the medical report and the material produced before me. It is apparent from the report that the injury received was a fracture of parital bone and brain material was coming out. The fact that the Doctor has not mentioned that the injury was dangerous to life at that stage cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that prima facie no offence u/s 307 IPC was committed. It is apparent from the report that the injury received was a fracture of parital bone and brain material was coming out. The fact that the Doctor has not mentioned that the injury was dangerous to life at that stage cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that prima facie no offence u/s 307 IPC was committed. The nature of the injury is very important. As observed in the authority cited above, ( 1989 JLJ 310 ) Various factors have to be seen and I entirely agree with the observations made in that case. To my mind, there was a prima facie case for framing charge u/s 307 and if ultimately after charge is framed the Court comes to a conclusion that there is no case u/s 307, the Court can convert the case under a minor offence. In this view of the matter the impugned order has to be set aside and the revision petition should be allowed. The revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside to this extent that the order transferring the case to the C.J.M. is set aside. The learned lower Court is directed to frame charge according to law and proceed further. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 21.4.94.