ORDER : 1. By the instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., accused-petitioner has assailed order dated 10.04.2018 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Balotra, District Barmer (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) framing charges against him for offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 325, 307 and 394/34 IPC. 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this revision petition, are that complainant Rajendra Kumar submitted a written report before SHO, Police Station Balotra on 02.02.2017, inter-alia, alleging therein that the accused-petitioner accompanied by Abhishek @ Bhamsa, Rajendra @ Raju, Ranidas and five others attacked Mahendra Kumar @ Pintu with common intention, well armed with lathies and iron rods etc. The FIR further unfurled that on account of serious beatings given to Mahendra Kumar, he has suffered grievous injury. On the basis of written report, FIR No.37/2017 was registered and investigation commenced. Requisite medical report of the injured was also procured and statements of witnesses were recorded by the police. Upon completion of investigation, petitioner and three others were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. Learned Magistrate, thereafter, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and presently trial is going on before the learned trial Court in Sessions Case No.05/2018. Learned trial Court, after hearing arguments, by the impugned order, framed charges against petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial Court has not at all cared to examine the materials available on record including injury report of the injured while framing charge under Section 307 IPC. It is also argued by learned counsel that as per medical report also, no grievous injury on vital part is suffered by the victim. It is also contended by learned counsel that although petitioner is assigned role of giving axe blow on the head of Mahendra @ Pintu by axe is attributed to the petitioner but there is no recovery of axe from him and only an iron pipe is recovered. Learned counsel further submits that the police statements of first informant Rajendra Kumar and injured Mahendra are at variance but this aspect has not been examined by learned trial Court while framing charge under Section 307 IPC. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that no interference with the impugned order is warranted. Learned counsel further submits that the police statements of first informant Rajendra Kumar and injured Mahendra are at variance but this aspect has not been examined by learned trial Court while framing charge under Section 307 IPC. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that no interference with the impugned order is warranted. It is also argued by learned Public Prosecutor that at the stage of framing charge, Court is only required to see prima facie case and certainty of conviction cannot be examined. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the materials available on record. 6. While it is true that at the stage of framing charge, Court is required to see whether prima facie case against the petitioner is made out or not, but then, it is also desirable that Court should examine Sections 227 and 228 Cr.PC. Section 227 Cr.P.C. envisages that after hearing submission of the accused and prosecution and upon perusal of the documents, if the Court considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against accused, it can discharge the accused by recording reasons. In juxtaposition to Section 227, if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is a grave suspicion about involvement of accused in commission of offence, then, it may proceed to frame the charge. Thus, the Court at the stage of framing charge, is required to equi balance its power under Sections 227 and 228 Cr.P.C. If the impugned order is examined in that background, then it would ipso facto reveal that learned trial Court has not recorded any reason much less cogent reasons for recording its satisfaction about grave suspicion against the accused-petitioner showing possibilities of his involvement in commission of serious offence under Section 307 IPC. The Court, at the stage of framing charge is required to examine the material collected during investigation for recording its prima facie satisfaction and not to act mechanically as a Post-Office because charge is the main foundation of the trial. In totality, in my view, learned trial Court has not taken care to examine the materials available on record in right perspective by exercising power under Section 228 Cr.P.C. 7. Consequently, impugned order to the extent it has framed charge under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner cannot be sustained and the order to that extent is set at naught. In totality, in my view, learned trial Court has not taken care to examine the materials available on record in right perspective by exercising power under Section 228 Cr.P.C. 7. Consequently, impugned order to the extent it has framed charge under Section 307 IPC against the petitioner cannot be sustained and the order to that extent is set at naught. The matter is sent back to learned trial Court for re-considering and passing appropriate orders afresh strictly in accordance with law. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.