JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition. However, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself has been heard finally. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8.10.96 one Subhan Khan submitted a written report to the S.H.O., Police Station Kalandri to the effect that on that date when he was returning after easing himself, the accused persons way laid, and on seeing him gave an indiscriminate beating to him, as a result of which, he received injuries, he raised a cry, which attracted his wife Hafija, who was also given beating. It was also alleged that the beating was given with a view to kill him. Other various allegations were also made in the FIR. The Police after investigation submitted a charge sheet for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 327 and 149 IPC. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties on the question of charge vide order impugned, came to the conclusion that from the perusal of the injury report of the victim, it does not appear that any of the injuries of the victim was dangerous to life, nor any injury was received on any vital part of the body. Inter alia in the backdrop of these observations, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that prima-facie, offence under Section 307 IPC does not appear to have been made out. However, he was of the view that the offences under Sections 147, 323, 325 and 149, Prima-facie appear to have been made out. Consequently, he transferred the matter to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate to try the case, and directed the accused persons to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8.11.2000. 3. The complainant has filed this present revision seeking to challenge this order, contending that this order, is based on misreading of record, inasmuch as, according to the X-ray report dated 18.10.96, it is clear that the petitioner had sustained fractures of 6th, 7th & 8th left side ribs, and in the injury report dated 8.10.96 also a corresponding external injury is shown, and thus prima facie offence under Section 307 is made out, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the accused non petitioners, on the other hand, contended that victim was medically examined on 8.10.96 and that very day, the X-ray examination was also held, wherein these fractures of ribs are not mentioned. However, under what circumstances, the fractures have been detected in the X-ray on 18.10.96, is a matter, on which nothing can be, and nothing is required to be, said at this stage. And on this basis the learned counsel for the accused non petitioners supports the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the opinion that, since during trial it is always open to the learned Magistrate, at any stage, if he finds that any offence, other than that for which charge has been framed, is made out. he can suitably amend the charge, and in case the offence is found to be exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, then he can always commit the case to the Sessions more particularly in view of the provisions of Section 323 Cr. RC. 6. In this view of the matter, I do not feel well advised to go into the merits of the matter as it obviously would attract some findings or observations, this way or that way, and would better like to leave the matter open for the learned trial court as contemplated by Section 323 Cr. PC. i.e. if during trial, at any stage, he finds that any offence other than those charged, are made out, he will be free to suitably amend the charge, and obviously if such additional offence found, is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he can always commit the case to the Court of Sessions. 7. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. 8. Since the impugned order was passed way back on 06.11.2000 and the accused persons were directed to appear on 8.11.2000, and I am informed that till now no evidence of the prosecution has been recorded so far despite expiry of such a long time, the learned trial court is directed to expeditiously proceed with the matter. *******