JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition, filed by the petitioner complainant and injured, it is prayed that order dated 01.04.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh under Section 228 (1)(A), Cr.P.C. may be quashed to the extent of discharging non-petitioners from offence under Section 307, I.P.C. Further, the trial Court may be directed to frame charge against the non-petitioners for offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and then commence the trial. 2. Main argument of learned counsel for the injured petitioner is that as per prosecution story fire-arm was used and petitioner Prem Kumar received injury from the firearm upon his left eye; meaning thereby, there was intention to cause death of the injured petitioner but, fortunately, death was not caused. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that for discharging non-petitioners from charge under Section 307, I.P.C. the trial Court took into consideration the premise that no opinion was given by the doctor that injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; but, in fact, in case of 307, I.P.C. intention is to be gathered. Here, in this case, admittedly, as per allegation of the prosecution the accused non-petitioners used fire-arm and injuries were received by petitioner Prem Kumar, out of which, injury No.2 was on the left eye of Prem Kumar. 3. As per the doctor, injured received permanent loss of eye but the doctor did not find that this injury was sufficient to cause death, therefore, learned trial Court while accepting the opinion of the doctor discharge the accused non-petitioners from offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and while exercising power under Section 228 (1)(A), Cr.P.C. forwarded the case for trial to Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate which is totally erroneous because, in the incident, serious injury was received by injured Prem Kumar and those injuries were received by him and one injury was sustained by Munni and Kaushlya each and, so also, Preveen Kumar received two simple injuries; meaning thereby, offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is in existence but trial Court ignored all these facts and discharged the non-petitioners from offence under Section 307, I.P.C. which is totally illegal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners submits that order passed by the Addl. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners submits that order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh is perfectly in consonance with law because the said Court considered the medical opinion, so also, gave reasons for discharging the non-petitioners from offence under Section 307, I.P.C., therefore, no interference is required in this matter. 5. Further, it is submitted that in absence of any opinion of the doctor that injuries are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, it cannot be said that offence is made out under Section 307, I.P.C., therefore, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered rival submissions made by both the parties. 7. Admittedly, in this case, FIR was registered for offences under Sections 307, 326, 323, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. and, after investigation, challan was filed under aforesaid sections. After hearing the parties, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh held that non-petitioners accused are entitled to be discharged from offence under Section 307, I.P.C. In my opinion, although learned Addl. Sessions Judge tried to substantiate his finding while considering the medical opinion but, in fact, looking to the nature of the injuries and weapon used by the accused non-petitioners it was not proper to discharge them from offence under Section 307, I.P.C. because admittedly these injuries were found upon the body of the complainant Prem Kumar and, out of 6 injuries, 5 were caused by fire-arm and medical officer gave opinion that injury No.2 is grievous in nature. 8. In my opinion, learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh has not properly assessed the evidence on record for the purpose of exercising power under Section 228 (1)(A), Cr.P.C. while discharging accused non-petitioners from offence under Section 307, I.P.C. At the time of framing charge, it is not proper to analyse or evaluate the evidentiary value of the material collected by the police. Further, at the time of framing charge, only prima facie case is required to be seen and order of framing charge or discharging the accused should not be passed as if the Court is finally deciding the criminal case. 9. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that as per evidence on record, it cannot be said that offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is not made out. The finding given by the learned Addl. 9. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that as per evidence on record, it cannot be said that offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is not made out. The finding given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh is, therefore, not sustainable in law because fire-arm was used and 6 injuries were caused including the serious injury upon the eye of the injured complainant. 10. On the basis of the above discussion this revision petition is allowed and order dated 01.04.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh whereby non-petitioners accused were discharged from offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is hereby quashed. The Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh is directed that after framing charge under Section 307, I.P.C. along with other charges against the non-petitioners the trial may be commenced. Record of the case be sent back to the trial Court immediately.Revision allowed. *******