ORDER : Mr. G.R. Moolchandani, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar in Session Case No.09/2015 whereby the learned court below has framed charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325, 325/34, 308, 308/34 and 354 IPC in the said case pertaining to FIR No. 103/2014, registered at Police Station Kishangarh Bas, Alwar. 2. The contents of FIR No. 103/2014, P.S. Kishangarh Bas, dated 18.02.2014, reads as under:- lsok esa] Jheku Fkkusnkj lkgc] Fkkuk fd’kux<+ ckal] fo”k; rgjhjh fjiksVZ Jheku th fuosnu gS fd vkt fnuakd 18-02-2014 dks le; djhc 12-30&1 cts nksigj dk okdk gS esjk HkkbZ ‘ksjflag o egk flag iq= gjpUn tkV fuoklh cEcksjk ds lkFk nokbZ ysdj vius ?kj ij vk jgk Fkk] rks dkyw [kka eso ds ?kj ds ikl ekSle] uwjnhu] le;nhu iq= dkyw [kka eso] jLlh] cLlh] eksVh] iqf=;ku dkyq [kka eso ,oa nhuw iq= fgEer eso fuoklh nsork Fkkuk fd’kux<+ ckl ,d jk; e’kfojk gksdj [kM+s gq, Fks ftuds gkFkksa esa ykBh QlhZ Fkh tks gh esjk HkkbZ dkyw [kka ds ?kj ds ikl igqapk mu yksxksa us esjs HkkbZ dks ?ksj fy;k vkSj tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls uwjnhu us esjs HkkbZ ds flj ls QlhZ dh ekjh ekSle us ykBh dh esjh HkkbZ ds gkFk esa ekjh] le;nhi us ykBh dh iSj esa ekjh lHkh eqykfteku /kM+k /kM+ ykfB;ksa ls esjs HkkbZ ds lkFk ekj ihV dhA egkflag us NqM+okuk pkgk rks mlds Hkh pksVsa vkbZA >xM+s dh vkokt lqudj dkQh vkneh vk x;s Fks ftUgksaus chp cpko djok;kA esjs HkkbZ dh gkyr xaHkhj gks xbZ FkhA ge vius HkkbZ dks ysdj fd’kux<+ ckl vLirky esa ysdj vk x;s muds ckn esjs HkkbZ dh iRuh iwtk dks irk pyus ij os fd’kux<+ ckl vLirky vk jgh Fkh tks tSls gh og jksM+ ij vkbZ rks uwjnhu us mldks idM+ fy;k vkSj mlds diM+s QkM+ fn;s ftlls csvnc gks xbZA fl;kjke o vU; xkao ds O;fDr;ksa us cM+h eqf’dy ls cpk;k vc Hkh esjs HkkbZ dh gkyr xaHkh cuh gqbZ gS ftldks vyoj ds fy, jSQj dj fn;kA bu yksxksa us okdk dy dh dgk lquk dks ysdj fd;k vr% fjiksVZ dks vk;k gwa fd eqywfteku ds fo:) fjiksVZ ntZ dh tkdj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tkosA 3. There are as many as 14 injuries on the body of injured person Sher Singh, including skull. According to the radiology report, multiple fractures have also been detected on the body of the injured and on the basis of material submitted before the trial court, the charges have been framed. 4. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of Munna Devi v. State of Raj. and Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1138/2001, decided on 06.11.2001, has laid down as under:- “Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397/401 and 227/228 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 354, 451 and 511 - Revision - Powers of revisional court - Revision against framing of charges under Sections 376, 511, 451 and 354, IPC - Whether order framing charges liable to be interfered with by High Court in revision? - Held, ‘no’ - High Court has no authority to re appreciate evidence - Premature for High Court to say that material placed before trial court insufficient for framing charges - Or the statement of prosecutrix herself not sufficient to proceed further against accused - Order of High Court unsustainable and set aside. The revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers, the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the 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.” Likewise, in State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, Criminal Appeal No. 216/2017, decided on 03.02.2017, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that: “To hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court should form an opinion that the Accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (26) (iv) The object of the Section 397 of Code, 1973 is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the proceeding. The High Court erred in quashing the charges framed. The order of the High Court was set aside and the order of Special Judge was restored.” which, apparently does not reflect in the case under hand. In the light of the above and material produced, contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no serious injury was there on the vitals of the injured, bears no force. Since it is manifest that appreciation of evidence or its re-appreciation, cannot be made by a revisional court and charges are to be framed by the trial court on the basis of material, which amply appears there, hence, this revision petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court.