JUDGMENT 1. - Against the petitioner framed is charge for offence of Sections 307, 326, 323, 452 and 4/25 Arms Act vide order dated 15.1.2011. 2. Assailing the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues that injury allegedly inflicted by petitioner is one and on hand and no other injury even attributed. Argues that no material for framing charge beyond that of Section 324 I.P.C., therefore, setting aside the order should be directed that matter be sent to competent Court under Section 228 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing states that injury is of sharp weapon and enough material for charge of atleast under Section 326 I.P.C. 4. Considering arguments had a careful look at the copies of challan made available for perusal. The order impugned directing framing charge states of framing charge and nothing else and n6t even for injury. A look at the copies of the record disclose that injury is caused by sharp object, said to be a knife and knife also is recovered. Injuries are two, one is wound and other is swelling. X-ray report speaks of no bone injury. Per other report based on treatment, injury was grievous as adversely affected and cut nerves of the finger. Thus, position is that injury is not on vital part and one at palm. On the basis of such only injury and per material available on record with incident and act not premeditated one then all this taken cumulatively, in the opinion of the Court, not sufficient material to charge for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is. However, is material for framing charge under Sections 452, 323, 326 and 4/25 Arms Act and therefore, partly accepting the revision, the order framing charge for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge to proceed accordingly, not precluded of appropriate orders, as may be warranted per law in course of trial.Revision partly allowed. *******