JUDGMENT R. Dayal, J. - This is a revision by two (sic) order of Civil and Sessions (sic)rejecting their revision (sic)n u/s 426, IPC. (sic)n in revision is that charged along with (sic)read with Section 149 (sic)They were not (sic) 426, IPC. 2. It is (sic)ir conviction (sic)Reliance is (sic)Punjab (1) (sic)desh(2). (sic) reger (sic) of observations. He considered non-framing of a charge to be a breach of fundamental provisions concerning the mode of trial and therefore sufficient to invalidate the trial. This would appear from para. 97 of the report. Considering the effect of Section 535, Code of Criminal Procedure validating the trial which otherwise might be invalid, he observed at page 60. 3. It is the provisions of Section 535 to which reference must be made in order to ascertain whether that which was invalid shall be deemed to be valid, unless the court was satisfied that there had been a failure of justice. I regard with concern, if not with dismay, a too liberal application of its provisions to all cases in which there is an absence of a charge, although a charge ought to have been framed. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when this provisions of Section 535 will or will not be applicable. 4. The facts of each case, as they arise, will have to be carefully considered in order to decide that which was prima facie 'invalid' is deemed to be valid by virtue of its provisions. There may be cases where the omission to frame a charge was merely a technical defect in which case Section 535 would apply. On the other hand, there may be cases where failure to frame a charge affects the mode of trial or it is such a substantial contravention of the provisions of the Code relating to the framing of charges that prejudice may be inferred at once and the conviction which was 'prima facie' invalid continued to be so. 5. I consider these observations to amount to what had been held by the entire Bench that mere non-framing of a charge will not vitiate the trial and that the court will have to see in each particular case what the effect of non-framing of the charge is. 5. I consider these observations to amount to what had been held by the entire Bench that mere non-framing of a charge will not vitiate the trial and that the court will have to see in each particular case what the effect of non-framing of the charge is. If no prejudice is caused the non-framing of the charge can be considered to be a technical defect and that trial would be validated in view of Section 535, Code of Criminal Procedure. If prejudice has been caused the conviction which was prima facie invalid on account of the non-following of the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure would continue to be invalid and would not be validated by the provisions of Section 535, Code of Criminal Procedure. assembly and with the common object demolished the latrine of the complainant causing him a loss of Rs. 15/-. Such a charge did give notice of an allegation that each of them was instrumental in the demolition of the latrine. The charge may be said to be one which would come within the expression of "Rolled up charge involving the direct liability and the constructive liability without specifying who are directly liable and who are sought to be made constructively liable" as mentioned by Justice Chandrasekhara Aiyar in his judgment at page 57, para. 86 of the report. The accused must have known in such a simple case what the prosecution witnesses were deposing against them and must have naturally attempted to meet that case. I do not think that any prejudice has arisen against the accused in the trial of this case. 6. The second point urged is that one of the prosecution witnesses Barkat stated that one of the applicants Habibur Rahman was in possession of the house. Habibur Rahman himself stated in his statement that Mohammad Nasir the complainant was a tenant in the house on his behalf and that Mohammad Nasim instituted this case to cover up his own shortcoming in not paying the rent. He did not state that Mohammad Nasir had left the house sometime before the alleged incident as was attempted by some defence witnesses when they deposed that Mohammad Nasir had left the house about a year ago. I therefore do not consider any good reason to prefer the statement of Barkat and consider the findings of the court below to be wrong. I therefore do not consider any good reason to prefer the statement of Barkat and consider the findings of the court below to be wrong. 7. I, therefore, reject this revision.