JUDGMENT Ellis, J. - This is an appeal by 16 persons who have been found guilty by the (?). verdict of a jury and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge of Murshidabad under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. It is unfortunate that the case will have to be sent back for retrial but we feel we have no option in this matter. 2. Ground 6 of the petition of appeal states that the entire trial has been invalid by the holding of a local inspection after the close of defence arguments and under circumstances seriously challenged as objectionable by the accused as there was a large crowd on the spot and the jury freely mixed and talked with them. Ground 7 recites that the appellants had been seriously prejudiced by reason of the fact that the officer in charge of the police travelled in the same bus with the jury. Ground 8 states that the learned trial Judge erred in not keeping a memorandum of his local inspection and the entire procedure was contrary to law and operated to the serious prejudice of the accused and lastly Ground 9 states that the charge delivered by the Sessions Judge clearly indicated that the result of the local inspection was allowed to influence the jury without allowing any opportunity to the appellants of testing them (sic) and making their own submissions thereon. 3. The case clearly shows the danger attendant upon a local inspection. From the order-sheet of the Sessions Court we find under order No. 8 of 12-1-46 the following entry All the jurors are of opinion that they would visit the locality in order to get an idea as to where the occurrence actually took place. They are accordingly directed to visit the locality tomorrow (Sunday) at 2 P. M. Inform both parties. I shall also go to the locality at that time. 4. The next order in the order-sheet is No. 9 dated 14-1-46. It runs: The Jurors and myself inspected the locality in presence of the parties and their pleaders at 4 P. M. on 13. 1. 44. 5. The procedure adopted at the local inspection was obviously open to exception and allowed of a petition being filed before the learned Sessions Judge on 14-1-1946. That petition recites: The humble petition of Rahamat Munshi and others most respectfully sheweth: 1. 1. 44. 5. The procedure adopted at the local inspection was obviously open to exception and allowed of a petition being filed before the learned Sessions Judge on 14-1-1946. That petition recites: The humble petition of Rahamat Munshi and others most respectfully sheweth: 1. That on 13-1-16 when your Honour and the gentlemen of the Jury visited the locality more than one hundred men collected there and the gentlemen of the jury freely mixed and talked with them. That, on one occasion the Advocate of Your Honour's humble petitioners drew your Honour's attention to the fact that the foreman of the Jury was found at a distance surrounded by many men. That the gentlemen of the jury travelled in the same bus with the officer-in-charge of police station Bhagawangola for the most part of the journey. 2. That the gentlemen of the jury ought not to have been allowed to mix with outsiders in the locality and that this has caused a great prejudice to your Honour's humble petitioners and resulted in serious mis-carriage of justice. 3. That no memorandum of local inspection was placed on the record and that the defence had no opportunity of making submissions to the jury regarding the conclusions noted in such memorandum of local inspection. That the officer-in-charge who investigated into this case travelled in the same bus along with the Jurors while going for local inspection for the most part of the journey covering about 30 miles and had talks with them. This has seriously prejudiced the defence. 4. That in these circumstances your Honour's humble petitioners beg to place on record the above mentioned facts and circumstances and pray that your Honour may be graciously pleased to note about the accuracy of the facts and circumstances stated above. And your Honour's humble petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray. 6. In the margin of the petition the learned Judge has recorded his order: This petition was filed at 5 P. M. long after the verdict was given by the Jurors. It is true that many persons collected at the place, but I do not think that the Jurors had any consultation with any person regarding the occurrence and they were not allowed to mix with the outsiders. It is true that many persons collected at the place, but I do not think that the Jurors had any consultation with any person regarding the occurrence and they were not allowed to mix with the outsiders. There is no provision for keeping any memorandum of inspection of the locality but the learned Advocate for the accused were allowed to argue afresh on the points which were inspected and which were raised at the locality. It is true that the O. C. travelled in the same Bus with the Jurors, but the Lawyers of the accused as well as of the prosecution were also in the same bus and if they had any talk with the O. C. regarding the occurrence, that must have been intimated to me at the time of inspection. But nothing was informed to me about it. There is no ground to hold that the accused have been prejudiced. This petition has been filed after the verdict was pronounced against the accused. Let the petition be kept with the record. 7. We may at once say that the learned Judge is in error when he says that there is no provision for keeping any memorandum of the inspection of the locality and we would draw his attention to the provisions of S. 539 B Criminal P. C. In sub-s. (1) of that section are to be found the words: and shall without unnecessary delay record a memorandum of any relevant fact Observed at such inspection. 8. If the learned Sessions Judge had without delay recorded a memorandum of his inspection it might have helped in assessing the value to be placed on the petition which was filed before him on 14th January. From his observations in the margin we gather that the officer-in-charge actually did travel in the same bus as the jury, and although the lawyers of the accused as well as those of the prosecution might have travelled by the same bus it is impossible for as to hold that the accused were not prejudiced thereby for it is inconceivable that the parties did not discuss the case and the local inspection on their way to the site of the inspection and, more so, on their way back again. The Judge's marginal note does admit that many persons collected at the place and although he does not think that the jurors had any consultation with the persons regarding the occurrence and were not allowed to mix with outsiders, in the absence of any memorandum we are not prepared to hold that there is no substance in the allegations contained in the petition filed before him: 9. Apart altogether from this defect we may observe that the charge delivered to the jury contains grave defects. In particular we would draw attention to those parts of the charge in which the learned Sessions Judge has directed the jury on the value of a First Information Report. He uses the phrase: In the present case I hope you will have no ground to hold that there was any unreasonable delay in lodging the ejahar. Then you will have to see how far the statement contained in the F. I. R. is corroborated by the evidence adduced before you * * * Then about the assault on Umesh by Rahamat and Jashim son of Rahim which ultimately caused the death of Umesh you will find that the fact is stated in the F. I. R. and it has been proved by almost all the P. Ws. who prove the occurrence, namely ***** 10. It is quite clear from these extracts that the learned Sessions Judge fell into grave error in his directions to the jury on the value of the First Information Report which he so obviously treated as substantial evidence. Mr. Ahmed appearing for the Crown has frankly conceded that in the face of such serious misdirections no alternative course is possible but to order a retrial. Mr. Talukdar has also drawn our attention to the fact that although six defence witnesses were examined there is no mention of or appreciation of their evidence anywhere in the charge to the jury. 11. In these circumstances we allow this appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants and remand the case to be retried according to Law. 12. All the appellants other than appellants 1 and 2 (Jasim Sheikh and Rahamat Munshi) will remain on the same bail pending further orders of the trial Judge. Akram, J. 13. I agree.