- (1.) M. Katju, J. This application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed against the impugned order dated 4-8-1993 passed by the respondent No. 2 in S. T. No. 195 of 1992-State v. Arun alias Boby and others.
(2.) I have perused the impugned order dated 4-8-1993 by which charges under Section 333, I. P. C. have been framed against the applicants and I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and also learned Government Counsel. The impugned order states that some of the injuries are simple injuries while about some other injuries it cannot be said at this stage what is the nature of those injuries. However, charge under Section 333, I. P. C. has been framed. Learned counsed for the applicant has urged that an offence under Section 332 is triable by the Magistrate whereas offence under Sec tion 333 is triable by the Sessions Judge. In my opinion it was incumbent on the court below to have recorded a prima facie opinion whether any grievious injury has been caused on the injured person. For this purpose the court below should have called for the medical record and other papers and have recorded a. prima facie opinion as to whether an offence under Section 333 is made out. Without recording a prima facie opinion he could not have framed a charge under Section 333, I. P. C. In my opinion it was incumbent upon the court below to have recorded such prima facie opinion. Hence the framing of charge under Section 333, I. P. C. without recording a prima facie opinion, is in my opinion is illegal. In the circumstances of the case the impugned order dated 4-8- 1993 is set aside, but I clarify that it is open to the court concerned to frame a fresh charge after recording a prima facie opinion as indicated above.
(3.) WITH these observations this application is allowed. No order as to costs. Application allowed. .;