JUDGMENT

Srivastava, J - Twenty-four persons were tried by a 1st Class Magistrate of the Gonda district for offences under Sections 147, 323, 325, 452, 341 and 379, I.P.C. All the accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 379. Three of them were also acquitted of all the offences. The re-maining twenty-one were convicted under Sections 147, 323, 325 and 452, I.P.C. Two of them Bire and Rameshar were also convicted under Section 341, I.P.C. All the twenty-one persons appealed to the Court of Sessions at Gonda. In that Court the accused made a compromise with all the complainants. The compromise was accepted in so far as it related to offences which were compoundable and as a result of it, the convictions under Sections 325, 323 and 341 were set aside. The case against the accused under Sections 147 and 452 was dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge on the merits and after a careful discussion of all the arguments urged before him against the findings of the trying Magistrate, the learned Sessions Judge agreed with these findings and maintained the convictions of all the appellants under Sections 147 and 452, but made some alterations in the sentences passed against them.

2. The present application in revision has been made by all the twenty-one persons and is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The case for the prosecution which has been accepted by both the lower Courts, briefly stated, was that on 11th March 1932, the accused Ghazi and Angad Lal, applicants 1 and 2, about midday at the head of one hundred or one hundred and fifty men, all armed with lathis, attacked Jorai and other persons who at the time were cutting the crops in Jorai's field. The tenants fled to the house of one Zaheer and took refuge there. The assailants chased them into Zaheer's house, broke open the door of the latter's house and when Zaheer intervened gave him a beating. Subsequently they returned to Jorai's field and dragged away Nuri, a tenant who had been injured when they made their first attack in Jorai's field, to the house of the zamindar. It may be mentioned that Ghazi and Angad Lal who led the party of assailants are the mukhtar and karinda respectively of the zamindar.

3. The first point of law urged by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that the trial is vitiated by reason of the common object of the unlawful assembly not having been specified in the charge-sheet though it is stated therein that the offences were committed with a common object. It was conceded that in the case of a charge under Section 147, the omission of the common object from the charge-sheet would not vitiate it unless the accused could show that they were materially prejudiced by reason of the omission. But it was contended strongly that the charge being also under Section 149 the omission must be regarded as an illegality. The argument proceeded that if it is sought to make the accused constructively liable by calling in the aid of Section 149, it is essential that the common object of the assembly should be clearly and definitely stated in the charge sheet. The only case in point cited in support of this argument is Kudrutulla v. Emperor, (1912) 39 Cal 781. In this case it was held that it was obligatory to set out the common object in a charge under Section 149. The case does support the appellants' argument. With all respect to the learned Judges who decided the case, I regret I find myself unable to subscribe to the proposition laid down in such broad terms.

4. It is no doubt very, desirable that the common object should in such cases be mentioned so as to give the accused clear notice of the charge against them, but I am not prepared to say that the omission is anything more than an irregularity. Chapter 19, Criminal P. C, lays down rules as regards the form of charges. Sections 122 and 223 of this chapter provide that the charge shall contain necessary particulars as to time, place and person and in certain cases particul