JUDGMENT 1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence passed on the Petitioners under sec. 323, I. P. C., should not be set aside on the ground that there was no charge framed against them of any offence under that section or why such other order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. It appears that the Petitioners were originally charged under sec. 147, I. P. C., and convicted and sentenced under that section to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that there was no case under sec. 147, I. P. C., and that there was a case against the accused under sec. 323, I. P. C., for having caused hurt. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence under sec. 147, I. P. C., convicted the Petitioners of the offence of committing hurt and inflicted a fine of Rs. 50 on each. They moved this Court and obtained the present rule. The Magistrate in his explanation says that most likely the Petitioners relied on sec. 238 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but their case really falls under sec. 237 of the Code. Sec. 237 has to be read with sec. 236. If the facts of the case do not fall under sec. 236, sec. 237 has got no application. There is no doubt that the offence committed, as found by the lower Appellate Court, was an offence of causing hurt. But the accused were not prepared to give any defence against the charge of hurt. There was no charge framed against them for an offence of causing hurt. They had therefore no opportunity to defend themselves on this charge. 2. In making this Rule absolute, we may refer to the case of Yakub Ali v. Lethu Thakur I. L. R. 30 Cal. 288 (1902), which is on all fours with the present case. The Rule is therefore made absolute. The fine, if paid, must be refunded.