1. This Rule was issued on two grounds. The first is that the Trying Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This point is, I think, established, and following the ruling in Emperor v. Fernandez 59 Ind. Cas. 129 : 45 B. 672 : 22 Bom. L.R. 1040 : 22 Cri.L.J. 17 and the case in the Patna High Court in
2. The second ground is that the charges framed against the accused are defectives. This is not a matter on which I should be disposed to interefere, I there were no other defects in the case. But as the case must be remitted on the first ground, I think, we should also direct that the charges be amended. The first charge u/s 143, Indian Penal Code, omits to state the common object of the unlawful assembly. The common object should always be stated when a charge is framed u/s 143, Indian Penal Code, or the connected sections. The second charge is u/s 379. Indian Penal Code, and the property said to have been stolen is described simply as Damu''s property. It is represented to us that the land on which the paddy said to have been cut by the accused was grown could have been described with such greater precision. That appears to be true and I think that as the first charge must be amended, the second charge should also be amended by a more accurate description being given of the land from which the complainant alleges the paddy was cut and removed by the accused. The amendment of the charges will involve the duty of giving the accused an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution again. The case is, therefore, remitted to the first Court to be disposed of as directed above.
