JUDGMENT Prinsep and Mitra, JJ. - The Petitioners were convicted by the Magistrate of rioting u/s 147 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the Sessions Judge, after setting out the case for the prosecution, states:--"If the above story be accepted, it is clear that the proceedings were not such as can be properly designated a riot," and he accordingly acquitted the Petitioners of that charge. That charge was the only charge in the proceedings of the trial before the Magistrate. The Sessions Judge, however, thought proper on the evidence to convict the Petitioners of house-trespass (Section 448) and hurt (Section 323), but those offences were distinct and separate offences, which should have formed the subject of separate charges. The Magistrate in his explanation seems to think that they are both offences within the terms of that charge as set out by him and within the definition of the offence of rioting. The Magistrate is clearly wrong in this respect. The charge does not set out anything amounting to house-trespass; and although hurt is generally committed in the course of rioting, it does not necessarily follow that hurt is so caused and indeed from the facts set out in the judgment it does not appear that hurt was caused. It is stated that the accused seized Lethu and forcibly affixed his thumb-mark to a rag. But in so doing it does not necessarily follow nor is it so found that they caused bodily pain to Lethu so as to constitute the offence of hurt. We have also considered in connection with this matter whether, within the terms of Section 232 of the Code pf Criminal Procedure, the accused have been prejudiced by the omission of charges of house-trespass and hurt and we think that they have been so prejudiced, inasmuch as if those offences had been charged, the defences made might have been of an entirely different character. 2. The conviction and sentence are accordingly set aside.