Koshy, J.

Doubting the correctness of the decision reported in Kuriakose Chacko v. State (1950 KLT 628), a learned Single Judge of this Court referred this Revision Petition before the Division Bench. Before going into the question of law Involved in the above decision, we may consider the facts of the case. Petitioner is the 11th accused in SC.No.1 of 2006 of the Sessions Court, Alappuzha. Charge was framed against 12 accused on 6.8.2007 after their case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Magistrate’s Court. In the charge sheet accused. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. Accused 5 and 8 to 13 were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 212 read with Section 34 IPC. This revision petition is filed by the 11th accused. In the charge sheet the allegations against 11th accused are mainly contained in paragraphs, 32, 33 and 34 which are as follows:

“32. Thirty secondly, that you all A10, A11 and A12 knowingly that you all A1 to A4 and A6 and A7 committed the murder of Ramesh on 20.7.05 at 1.45 pm at a place 50 meters north to Kanichukulangara junction and with the intention of screening them from legal punishment you all A10 to A12 in furtherance of the common Intention harboured you A6 and A7 by concealing them from 2/9/05 to 5/9/05 and from 12/9/05 to 13/9/05 in Ordnance Factory Quarters No.5/589 in Aravamkodu Desom in Umathalai Village in Nilgiri District in Tamil Nadu in the occupation of Cw56 and there by you A10 committed of offence punishable u/s.212 r/w sec.34 of the IPC and within my recognizance:

33. Thirty thirdly, that you all A5 and A11 knowingly that you all A1 to A4 and A6 and A7 committed the murder of Ramesh on 20/7/05 at 1.45 pm at a place 50 meters north to Kanichukulangara junction and with the Intention of screening them from legal punishment you A5 and A11 in furtherance of the common Intention harboured you all A3, A4, A6 and A7 by concealing them on 29/7/05 in the hotel “Shivas Pleasure Inn” at Ootty in the room taken on rent in the name of you A11 in that hotel and there by you A11 committed the offence punishable u/s. 212 r/w s.34 of the IPC and within my cognizance.

34. Thirty fourthly, that you all A10 to A12 knowingly that you all A1 to A4 and A6 and A7 committed the murder of Ramesh on 20/7/05 at 1.45 pm at a place 50 meters north to Kanichukulangara junction and with the Intention of screening them from legal punishment you all A10 to A12 harboured you A6 and A7 by concealing them from 2/9/05 to 5/9/05 and from 12/09/05 to 13/9/05. In Ordinance Factory Quarters No.5/589 in Aravamkodu Desom in Umathalai Village in Nilgiri District in Tamil Nadu in the occupation of Cw56 and you A11 and A12 staying with them for four days from 3/9/05 in that quarters of Cw56 and thereby you A11 committed the offence punishable u/s.212 r/w sec.34 of the IPC and within my cognizance:”

2. It was contended by the petitioner that a person can be charge sheeted under Section 212 only after the main accused has been convicted for the offence alleged against them. In other words, charge can be filed under Section 212 only after the person who is alleged to have been harboured has been convicted. Secondly it was contended that Section 212 is an offence triable by the Magistrate and there is no necessity to try along with the main case before the Sessions Court. Thirdly it was contended that earlier when the police filed final report, that was accepted by the court. Thereafter a further enquiry was conducted as permissible under Section 173 (8). Then only petitioner was arrayed as an accused for having committed the offence under Section 212. But it is contention of the petitioner that except the statement of CW14, in the further investigation no material was found out and therefore filing of charge sheet against sheeting him. Finally, it was contended that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner. Therefore, charge against the petitioner is liable