Judgment :- 1. This reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Quilon arises out of revision petition filed by accused 2 to 9 in C.C. 56 of 1980 on the file of the First Class Magistrate of Karunagapally. 2. The case against them was that they along with accused No. 1, against whom no process was issued, wrongfully restrained Pws.1 to 3 and caused hurt to them while they attempted to pay their homage to the idol of St. Sebastain which was being carried in procession. Overt acts were ascribed to accused 2 to 9. Charges were framed against them under S.341 and 323 read with S.114 IPC. The learned Magistrate found that no case under S.341 has been made out, but accepting the prosecution evidence convicted them for an offence under S.323 read with S.114, IPC. 3. In revision the learned Sessions Judge has recommended that the conviction and sentence should be quashed and the accused acquitted on the ground that S.114, I.P.C., is not applicable because there is no proof of previous abetment. I do not think the conviction should be quashed on this ground as the facts proved amounts to the principal offence under S.323 IPC. No objection can be raised to this course in the face of S.237 Cr.P.C., as interpreted by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Begu v. Emperor (AIR. 1925 P.C. 130). 4. In a Madras case Sambasiva Mudali v. Emperor (AIR. 1931 Mad.225) following the Privy Council case referred to above it was stated: "This was not a case of converting a bare abetment to a conviction for the principal offence but the so called abetment was as described in S.114 itself by a man who is to be deemed to be the principal offender. The distinction between such a man and the principal offender, for this purpose, is one of such a shadowy character that the conversion cannot be said to offend against any reasonable construction of the powers given to the court under S.236 and 237. I respectfully agree with this view. Mere imperfection in the charge cannot vitiate a conviction unless prejudice can be shown. The irregularity would be one curable under S.537 Or. P. C. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has expressed his opinion that the evidence adduced in the page is so flimsy and insufficient to sustain the charge. I respectfully agree with this view. Mere imperfection in the charge cannot vitiate a conviction unless prejudice can be shown. The irregularity would be one curable under S.537 Or. P. C. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has expressed his opinion that the evidence adduced in the page is so flimsy and insufficient to sustain the charge. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 21-2-1960. On the same day the second accused in the case filed a petition against Pw. 2 and some others which complaint was enquired into by the police and proceedings under S.107 Cr. P.C., had been initiated. Probably as a counterblast this complaint was filed on the 23rd of February, I have been taken through the evidence and I agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence is thoroughly unsatisfactory and does not inspire confidence. The reference is accepted and the conviction and sentence are set aside. Fine, if paid, will be refunded.