Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 19-1-1994 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamsbedpur in G. R. Case No. 1084 of 1993 by which the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6, who were the accused in the case have been discharged from the liability of their offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Mr. N. N. Mahto, counsel for and on behalf of the Informant petitioner has streneously argued that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law as because the same has passed ex parte behind the back of the prosecution or the Informant and that the impugned order has been passed giving a complete go-bye to the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Although, the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6 have been issued notices in the case and they have appeared by filing vakalatnama, but none appeared at the time of hearing of this revision petition. 4. An FIR was lodged by the informant petitioner with the Telco PS alleging assault, attempt to murder by fire-arms etc. On the basis of that FIR, Telco PS Case No. 126/93 was registered under Sections 341/323/324/307/447, IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. It was alleged that Balam Singh, the opposite party was armed with gun and had caused assault on the petitioner with bonnet of the gun and the other co-accused, Brahamdeo Singh was armed with Tangi and assaulted the petitioner on his forehead causing fracture injury and other accused-opposite party had assaulted the petitioner with Lathi and other weapons. There was also medical report and then after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341/323/307/447/34 of the I. P. C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act against the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under the said sections of law and kept the file for the processing for committment. It has been submitted that on a petition filed by the accused opposite parties on 19-1-1994, to the effect that there is no case against the accused persons and they should be discharged, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate gave a hearing to the accused party on that petition without giving an opportunity of being heard of the prosecution or the informant. After hearing and on perusal of the case diary and the other materials in the case diary, the learned C. J. M. passed the impunged order holding that the materials do not create an offence under Section 307, I. P. C. and as such there was no need of committing the case to Sessions and hence kept the same into his file on the basis of materials. under Sections 341/323/347/34 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. This order has been challenged in this revision petition. 6. Before going into the merits of the case, it should be borne in mind that the scope of the Revisional Court is limited and even if there is irregularity, impropriety or illegality then also the Revisional Court will be slow in interfering with the impugned orders, unless it could be shown that those illegality and impropriety had resulted in miscarriage of justice. 7. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. Mahto, for and on behalf of the petitioner-In formant that the impugned order is in complete violation of Section 209, Cr. P. C, when the Magistrate has no authority to go into the merits of case when the charges before him was with penal provisions which are solely triable by the Sessions Court and the Magistrate can have no authority, but to commit the case to the Sessions. It is true that Section 209, Cr. P. C. has asked the committing Magistrate to commit the case to the Sessions, if the charges are exclusively triable by the Sessions, but the Apex Court has held that only on submission of charge-sheet with a Sessions triable penal provisions, it does not take away the authority of the Magistrate to see whether the case is triable by the Sessions Court or not. There may be wrong quoting or motivated quoting of a Sessions triable Sections by the Police and in that case Magistrate cannot be made to act as a Post Office under Section 209, Cr. P. C. to commit the case to Sessions. But, in Sanjay Gandhis case as reported in AIR 1978 SC 514 , the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the extent to which the Magistrate can go to adjudicate as to whether the case is exclusively triable by Sessions or not. P. C. to commit the case to Sessions. But, in Sanjay Gandhis case as reported in AIR 1978 SC 514 , the Apex Court has elaborately discussed the extent to which the Magistrate can go to adjudicate as to whether the case is exclusively triable by Sessions or not. It has been held in Sanjay Gandhis case and has been reiterated in later cases also that the Magistrate can only peep into the case through the whole of charge-sheet and not any other papers. He is not entitled/empowered to go through the case diary and other materials such as medical report, etc. and to form an opinion whether the case is triable by Sessions or not. 8. In that sense, the impugned order is definitely bad in the eye of law. There may be one point as to the authority of the Informant to agitate the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It has been held by this Court as reported in 1979 Cr LJ 1272 that the Informant even in a G. R. case is empowered to raise any illegality or impropriety in the proceedings before the Revisional Court and hence the revision petition is maintainable also. In cases where there are only wrong mentioning of Sessions triable sections then the committing court can exercise its jurisdiction to hold that the case is not exclusively triable by Sessions. It remains open to the Sessions Judge to consider all matters and if it is found that the case is not triable by Sessions then the Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to, instead of trying the case itself, can send it back to the Court of Magistrate under Section 228, Cr. P. C. but the Magistrate cannot exercise all its powers on going through the materials for adjudicating whether the case falls within the exclusive triability of the Sessions or not under Section 209, Cr. P. C. 9. The revision petition is thus allowed. The impugned order dated 19-1-1994 is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the court below for proceeding according to the law, as per observations made above.