ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This revision is directed' against an order of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, upholding on appeal the applicants conviction Under Sections 426/506, I.P.C. and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. Each of the applicant has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20/- u/s 426, IPC, in default to two weeks' rigorous imprisonment. They have been further sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20 each u/s 506, I.P.C. and to a fine of Rs. 30/- each u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and to undergo one month's rigorous imprisonment and two weeks' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fines under the aforesaid two counts. 2. One Samay Singh filed a complaint against the applicants alleging that they had his chari crop destroyed by getting it grazed by their buffaloes and bullocks and that they had also cut and removed a portion of it, and when the complainant interfered they tried to attack him with lathis. 3. The applicants had pleaded not guilty before the trial court. 4. The case was tried summarily by a Special magistrate First Glass, Saharanpur. The version of the prosecution was supported by the complain ant himself and the four witnesses. The magistrate also made a local inspection of the spot. It appears that although the complaint was filed on 27.9.1960, for some reason which is not clear on the record the learned Magistrate recorded his judgment of conviction on 28. 8. 1962, i. e. about two years after the date of occurrence. In his judgment he has also relied for holding the charge established against the applicants, on the observations which he had made at the time of his local inspection. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants has raised two contentions in support of this revision. He had argued that the learned Magistrate had no authority in law to rely on the observations made by him during the course of local inspection for holding the charge established against the applicants. He has further contended that the fact that the learned Magistrate passed his judgment two years after the institution of the complaint indicates that in the natural course of things he could not have been able to appreciate the evidence in a proper manner. 6. He has further contended that the fact that the learned Magistrate passed his judgment two years after the institution of the complaint indicates that in the natural course of things he could not have been able to appreciate the evidence in a proper manner. 6. The learned Sessions Judge in his judgment has observed that ''the learned Magistrate had made an error in making the observations referred to above in his judgment" and in relying on the result of his local inspection. It is settled law that local inspections are made by courts only to appreciate the evidence on record in the light of the observations made at that time. 1 he facts observed at the time of local inspection by themselves cannot be allow ed to form a basis for the decision. In this view of the matter, I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel that the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate is vitiated in law. The lower appellate court has observed that this error has not resulted in causing a prejudice to the applicants. I do not agree. The very fact that certain material which was not admissible for being considered for arriving at a finding has been utilized by the trial court for recording the conviction of the applicants amounts to causing a prejudice to the accused. 7. In this view of the matter, lam of the opinion that this revision must be allowed 8. The revision is allowed. The conviction and sentences of the applicants are set aside. Fines, if paid, shall be refunded to them.