JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - The Petitioners were convicted by the Magistrate, First Class, (Judicia), Aska, under Sections 447 and 148, Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under each of the sections, in default, to R.I. for one month each. Thus in all they were to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 1200-. They appear to have been acquitted of the charge u/s 379, Indian Penal Code. The judgment is, however, silent about this charge. In appeal, the conviction u/s 148, Indian Penal Code against Bauri Reddy (Petitioner No. 2) and Gurunath Reddy (Petitioner No. 5) was) converted to one u/s 147, Indian Penal Code and their sentence was reduced to a fine of Rs. 60- each only under this Court, in default, to R.I. for one month. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate was otherwise confirmed. 2. Prosecution case is that the Petitioners with many others came in a body on 14-8-1963 and trespassed into the land which was in the possession of p.w.1. They prevented him from doing Bihuda operation, carried away his agricultural implements and bullocks and assaulted him. The defence is one of complete denial. The case of the Petitioners is that there was litigation between them and p.w.1 and the present case has been falsely foisted on them. The learned Magistrate did not believe the story of removal of agricultural implements and bullocks and of assault. The Petitioners were charged under Sections 379, 447 and 148, Indian Penal Code. On the finding that the story of removal of agricultural implements and the bullocks had not been established, he did not convict the Petitioners under Sections 379, Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Acharya contended that in the charge u/s 148, Indian Penal Code, the common object of the unlawful assembly was mentioned to be theft and trespass; and that the story of theft and assault having been disbelieved, the Courts below were wrong in holding that an offence of trespass was committed. According to him, if the offence u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, is not established, the conviction u/s 148, Indian Penal Code is illegal as the common object of unlawful assembly in the charge was mentioned to be the commission of criminal trespass. 4. According to him, if the offence u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, is not established, the conviction u/s 148, Indian Penal Code is illegal as the common object of unlawful assembly in the charge was mentioned to be the commission of criminal trespass. 4. To appreciate the contention the relevant portions of the two charges may be quoted Secondly - That you on or about the same day of same time and same place, committed criminal trespass by entering into the said land, then in possession of Madhu Sudan Mohanty, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 447 of the Indian Penal Code.... Thirdly- That you on or about the same time, same day and at same place were a member of an unlawful assembly, and did in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, i.e. theft and trespass, committed the offence of rioting with a deadly weapon, i.e. lathi, Bhusa etc. and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 148 of the Indian Penal Code... .., ... .. 5. The findings of the learned Sessions Judge are (i) The Appellants and others came in a body armed with deadly weapons like Bhusas, Katis ete. and forcibly entered upon the land of p.w.1; and (ii) The Appellants entered upon the land with intention to show criminal force against p.w.1. This is intimidation. Hence the Appellants had criminal intention to intimidate p.w.1. 6. On the aforesaid findings, an offence u/s 447, Indian Penal Code is well established. Whoever enters into or upon the property in the possession of another with intent to commit offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property is said to commit criminal trespass (Section 441, Indian Penal Code). On the finding that the Petitioners came in a body armed with deadly weapons, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in drawing the conclusion that the criminal intention was to intimidate p.w.1. Section 441 does not make the knowledge of the consequence an ingredient of the offence. Intention is the real test it is a state of the mind. It is to be gathered from the facts and circumstances each case. Section 441 does not make the knowledge of the consequence an ingredient of the offence. Intention is the real test it is a state of the mind. It is to be gathered from the facts and circumstances each case. u/s 114, Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. In so doing, it has to keep in mind the nature of the act of the accused and its effect on the mind of the party in possession. It cannot, however, as a matter of law, presume intention from the natural consequence of the act. Whether criminal intention existed or not would, vary from case to case depending upon its particular facts and circumstances, T.H. Bird v. Emperor AIR 1934 Pat. 158, and Nila Majhi v. Uda Bhoi 29 C.L.T. 382 gives a clear exposition of this concept. The word 'intimidate' in Section 441 must be construed in its ordinary sense. It means to overawe, to put in fear, by a show of force of threats or violence. Doubtless the learned Magistrate held that the accused did not commit assault. But on the concurrent finding that they came in a body armed with deadly weapons, like Bhusas and Katis etc., and forcibly entered into the land, which was admittedly in possession of p.w.1, it is easy to infer that their intention was to intimidate. The learned Sessions Judge came to the correct conclusion. To get over this difficulty, Mr. Acharya contended that the charge u/s 447 did not mention that the accused had the intention to intimidate. According to him, the accused were faced with a case of assault and were not called upon to meet the case of existence of an intention to intimidate. This argument does not appeal to me. The prosecution case unfurled the story that the accused came in a body fully armed, forcibly entered into the land in the possession of p.w.1 and committed acts of assault and theft. This argument does not appeal to me. The prosecution case unfurled the story that the accused came in a body fully armed, forcibly entered into the land in the possession of p.w.1 and committed acts of assault and theft. The acts of assault and theft were discard as being exaggeration and embellishment .The rejection of such a case does not detract from the fact an accused had full notice of a case against them that they came In a body armed with deadly weapons and forcibly entered upon the land in the possession of p.w.1. A number of prosecution witnesses were examined on the point and were fully cross-examined. It is difficult to accept Mr. Acharya's contention that the accused had no notice of such a case. They had a clear notice of the case and no prejudice has been occasioned to them. Law is well settled that non-mention of certain facts in the charge would not observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, requirements of procedure are generally intended to subserve the ends of justice. Undue emphasis on mere technicalities in respect of matters which are not of vital or important significance in a criminal trial may sometimes frustrate the ends of justice (Chitaranjan v. State of West Bengal). Mr. Acharya's contention that the conviction u/s 447 is not well founded, has no force. 7. The second contention that as the conviction u/s 447 is not maintainable, the charge u/s 148 or 147, Indian Penal Code would fail requires no examination in view of my conclusion that the conviction u/s 447 is legal. No assault or theft having been committed, the sentence need not be very heavy. No separate sentence need be passed u/s 148 or 147. The sentences under Sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code a set aside. Ends of justice would be met if each of the Petitioners is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75- (seventy-five rupees) u/s 447, Indian Penal Code, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month each. Subject to the aforesaid modification on the question of sentence, the revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed; Sentence modified. Final Result : Dismissed