JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all these cases.

2. Heard Mrs. Vandana Bharti, Mr. Vishwanath Roy and Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party- State.

3. These criminal revision applications have been filed challenging the judgment pronounced on 16.12.2011 by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad passed in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2011 (arising out of C.P. Case No.1072 of 2000) whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, vide judgment dated 09.05.2011 passed in C.P. Case No. 1072/2000, corresponding to T.R. No. 1211/2011 had held the petitioners guilty of having committed the offences under Sections 147, 452, 354, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judicial Magistrate had sentenced the petitioners to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal code, Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Simple Imprisonment for two years each for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. All the petitioners were directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month each. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there are altogether 14 persons who have been convicted for the offence under Sections 427, 147, 354, 506 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that the case arises out of a complaint case and there are two dates in connection with which the incidents have been clubbed in the same complaint petition. As per the complaint, the date of incidents are 27.08.2000 and 11.09.2000. The learned counsel submitted that the date of occurrence as mentioned in the complaint is 27.08.2000, but different dates have been mentioned by the different prosecution witnesses. He submitted that altogether four prosecution witnesses have been examined in the present case. P.W.-1 has disclosed the date as 27.08.2000, P.W.-2 has disclosed the date as 27.07.2000, P.W.-3 has disclosed it as 27.08.2000 and P.W.-4 in her chief has mentioned the date as 27.07.2000.

5. However, during the course of argument, the attention was drawn of the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the crossexamination of P.W.-4 wherein the date of incident is mentioned as 27.08.2000.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that so far as the charge is concerned, at the stage of framing of charge, the material date has been mentioned as 28.08.2000 and 11.09.2000. The learned counsel submitted that the charge specifically indicated the date as 28.08.2000 though a different date was reflecting in the complaint and in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and accordingly, the petitioners could not have been convicted for committing offences on the date alleged in the complaint petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners specifically submitted that the date which has been mentioned in the charge is not borne out of the record and accordingly, the petitioners have been charged for the occurrence on a date which is nowhere reflected from the records of the case.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the charges which have been framed in the instant case were also vague and the petitioners could not have been convicted for vague charges.

8. However, during the course of arguments, it was noticed that while recording the statements of the ac