JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal at the admission stage. 1. This revision petition under section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.RC. arises out of the order dated 9.12.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Alwar, by which the learned trial judge has framed charges under Section 307, 323 and 323/34 IPC against accused petitioner Pravesh Kumar and under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 against petitioners Rajendra Kumar and Raj Kumar. 2. The only contention raised by Mr. Amit Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court was not at all justified in framing charge under Sections 307 IPC against the petitioners as none of the injuries found on the persons of injured was found to be grievous in nature and the injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death so as to attract Section 307 Indian Penal Code According to the learned counsel, the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. In these circumstances, learned counsel argued that the petitioners had no intention to commit murder. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the trial court has committed a serious error in framing the charges inasmuch as in the facts and circumstances of the case and from the evidence and material collected during investigation and placed before the trial court, there was nothing so as to enable it to frame charges against the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order framing charges against the petitioners is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Complainant have supported the order of the trial court and contended that the powers under Section 397 Cr.RC. may be exercised sparingly and it should not be exercised in a routine and casual manner. It is contended that there was sufficient evidence available with the trial court to form an opinion. According to them, the allegation against the accused petitioners was that they inflicted raizor blows on the face of Prem Kumar and Mehendra Kumar and therefore, it can be inferred that the accused petitioners had an intention to cause death. 5. I have considered the rival submission. Section 307 IPC makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result. 5. I have considered the rival submission. Section 307 IPC makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient in the ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the court is required to see is whether the act done by a person was with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in Section 307 Indian Penal Code Therefore, it cannot be said at this (sic stage) as to what would be the ultimate result. It is for the trial court to find out on the basis of evidence adduced and the material produced during trial of the case, as to what offence the accused has committed. 6. In State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil ( AIR 1983 SC 305 ), in an appeal against acquittal of the accused under Section 307 IPC by the High Court, held that High Court was not correct in acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 307 IPC merely because the injuries inflicted on the victims were in the nature of a simple hurt. Similar is the position in the case at hand, where the accused petitioners alleged to have assaulted the victims on their face by a sharp edged weapon, i.e. razor. Though the injuries on the face of both the victims were found to be simple, however, as already observed above, what has to be seen is, whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in section 307 Indian Penal Code 7. In the case at hand, it appears from the record of the file that petitioner Praveen Kumar and Complainant had business terms with each other. On the day of incident the Complainant and his brother- in- law had gone to accused petitioner Pravesh Kumar to collect the dues/the article lying with Pravesh Kumar, whereupon some altercation took place and Pravesh Kumar took out a razor from his trouser and inflicted blows on the face of Complainant and his brother- in- law. When the injured tried to escape from the scene, the accused petitioner Pravesh Kumar and his two brothers chased them and caused injuries. When the injured tried to escape from the scene, the accused petitioner Pravesh Kumar and his two brothers chased them and caused injuries. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order has assigned reasons, which in my opinion, appear to be just and reasonable. In my considered view, the material placed before the learned trial court was sufficient to frame charges against the petitioner. The weapon used was razor and the place of body chosed was face. I do not find any illegality much less any irregularity so as to warrant interference with the order of the trial court framing charges. 8. That apart, the revisional powers under Section 397 Cr.RC. cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. It may be exercised sparingly so as to avoid needless multiplicity of procedure, unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. While exercising revisional powers, this court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Such powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the first information report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. 9. In the result, this revision petition stands dismissed at the admission stage. Since the revision petition is pending in this court for about two and half years. I consider it proper to direct the trial court to expedite the trial of the case. *******