Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioners have challenged the order dated 210.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thana Gazi, Alwar, whereby he has framed the charges for the offences under Sections 148, 323, 341, 325, 326, 504 read with Section 149, IPC. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 012.2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1 Alwar whereby he has confirmed the charge order dated 210.2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.2004 one Shri Suresh Chand filed a report at Police Station Narainpur, Alwar, wherein he claimed that the accused petitioners came with deadly weapon and assaulted his mother, his close relative and him whereby they sustained injuries. On the basis of the said report, a former FIR was registered for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, IPC. The injured, specially, Smt. Somvati, who is said to have sustained a grievous injury, was initially medically examined on 11.2004. Accordingly to the Injury Report, she had received four injuries by a blunt weapon. Subsequently, on 011.2004 she was re-examined by a Medical Board. However, the Medical Board did not give any opinion about the nature of weapon used to cause the injury. On 211.2004, a Dental Expert, who opined that her upper left incisor tooth was fractured and this injury is grievous in nature, examined her. He also claimed that the injury was caused by sharp edged weapon. Therefore, the police added the offences under Sections 325 and 326, IPC while filing the charge-sheet. Later on, the learned Judicial Magistrate framed the charges vide order dated 210.2005 as aforementioned. Since, the petitioners were aggrieved by the charge order, they filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Vide order dated 012.2005, the revision petition was dismissed and the charge order was upheld as aforementioned. Hence, this petition before us. .3. Mr. Rajesh Goswami, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, has argued that it is not the nature of the injury, which is the deciding factor for an offence under Section 326, IPC, but it is the nature of the weapon used to cause the injury, which is material. According to the statement of Smt. Somvati, she was hit by a "Lathi" on her face. Thus, the injury to the tooth was caused by a blunt weapon and not by a sharp edged weapon. According to the statement of Smt. Somvati, she was hit by a "Lathi" on her face. Thus, the injury to the tooth was caused by a blunt weapon and not by a sharp edged weapon. According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, for an offence under Section 326, IPC it is essential that a sharp edged weapon or a lethal weapon be used to .cause the injury. Since, in the present case a blunt weapon has been used according to the injured herself , the ingredients of Section 326, IPC are conspicuously missing. Hence, according to learned Counsel, the charge for offence under Section 326, IPC is misplaced. .4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Arun Sharma, has argued that it is the nature of the injury, which is the deciding factor. In case, a grievous injury is caused either by a blunt or a sharp edged weapon, then the case will be covered under Section 326, IPC. According to Section 320, the fracture of a tooth comes under the definition of "grievous injury". Therefore, according to him, the ingredient of Section 326, IPC is clearly made out. .5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. 6. The framing of a charge is not merely a formality, but it is a judicious act wherein the Judicial Officer should apply his mind to the evidence in order to see whether ingredients of the offence exist or not. Although, a detailed and meticulous examination of the evidence is unwarranted, but nonetheless some sifting of the evidence is necessary to see whether the essential ingredients of an offence exists or not. In case, the essential ingredients of an offence are missing or in case two views are possible, then the charge for the said offence should not be framed. In the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., 1979 (3) SCC 4 , the Honble Supreme Court had laid down the principles, which should guide the framing of the charges. The Apex Court had held as under : That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The Apex Court had held as under : That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and Large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be within his right to discharge the accused. That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weight the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. 7. Hence, while framing the charges, the Court should keep the above-note principles in mind. 8. In the present case, the injured Smt. Somvati herself stated that she was hit with a `Lathi be a accused. Although, according to the complainant, the accused persons were armed with a Lathi and Datali (a sharp edged weapon), but the injured person nowhere stated that she was hit by a "Datali". According to her, she was hit with a "Lathi", which is a blunt weapon. 9. Sections 325 and 326, IPC deal with the causing of grievous injury. However, the difference between the two Sections is that while Section 325, IPC deals with causing of grievous injury by a blunt weapon, Section 326, IPC deals with causing of injury by a sharp edged weapon or a lethal weapon. 9. Sections 325 and 326, IPC deal with the causing of grievous injury. However, the difference between the two Sections is that while Section 325, IPC deals with causing of grievous injury by a blunt weapon, Section 326, IPC deals with causing of injury by a sharp edged weapon or a lethal weapon. 10. Section 326, IPC clearly states that "whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence...........". The words "any instrument" will have to be interpreted as an instrument similar in nature to those instruments for shooting or stabbing etc. In order to interpret the words "any instrument" one has to apply Rule of Ejusdem generis. The rule states that a general word should be interpreted in the light of the specific words, it keeps company with. The words "any instrument" are preceded by the words "any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting.....". Therefore, the words "any instrument", necessarily implies the use of a sharp edged weapon. Hence, the first part of Section deals with instruments, which are sharp edged in nature. 11. In the present case, since a blunt weapon was used according to the injured herself , therefore, the ingredients of Section 326 are absent. When the ingredients are missing, the learned Judicial Magistrate is unjustified in framing the charge for offence under Section 326, IPC. As charge for offence under Section 325, IPC has already been framed, and rightly so, we modify the impugned order to the extent that the charge for the offence under Section 326 is quashed and set aside. However, the charges framed for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 325 read with Section 149, IPC are maintained. 12. With these observations, this petition is partly allowed.