ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - Mahip, Budhhu, Rajju and Prahlad have filed this revision against the appellate judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge of Ghazipur acquitting them u/s 147 IPC but upholding their conviction and sentence of six months' R.I. each u/s 323 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The conviction of the Applicants is based upon the following findings which are final for the purposes of this revision: 1. that there was enmity between Sheo Shankar Singh and the Applicants on the one side and Ghandrika Singh, a nephew of Sheo Shankar Singh on the other. 2. that on 7-8-1964 at about 5 p.m. when Ram Badan Singh, a brother of Ghandrika Singh was returning home from his school along with his cousins Surajman and Janardan he was waylaid by the Applicants at the nala near village Shikarpur. 3. that on seeing Ram Badan Singh and his cousins, Mahip instigated his companions to beat them whereupon all the Applicants fell upon Ram Badan Singh with lathis, while his cousins managed to run away. 4. that just about that time PWs Ram Nath and Ram Lakhan who lived across the nala happened to be returning home from Bazar Sadat. They heard the cries of Ram Badan Singh and ran towards the scene of occurrence and saw the Applicants assaulting Ram Badan Singh, and 5. that as a result of the assault Ram Badan Singh sustained 12 simple lathi injuries. 3. On behalf of the Applicants the first contention urged before was that as the case was initially investigated by the police, who submitted a final report, the Applicants were entitled to the statements of the witnesses which were recorded by the police u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure--especially when they had applied for them--and as those statements were not supplied to them, they were prejudiced in their defence and their conviction was, therefore, illegal. In my opinion this contention has no merits for the simple reason that the cognizance of the instant offence was taken by the Magistrate not on any police report but on a private complaint and in such a case, the Applicants were not entitled as a matter of right to the copies of the statements recorded by the police. In my opinion this contention has no merits for the simple reason that the cognizance of the instant offence was taken by the Magistrate not on any police report but on a private complaint and in such a case, the Applicants were not entitled as a matter of right to the copies of the statements recorded by the police. If the Applicants wanted copies of those statements for the purpose of cross-examining the complainant's witnesses they should have applied for them to the Superintendent of police concerned and it is only, on their failure to get them from him that some duty might have been cast upon the Magistrate to see that they were supplied to them. However, when the learned Counsel for the Applicants was asked whether his clients had applied for copies of the said statements to the Superintendent of Police, he was unable to make a statement one way or the other and instead reliance was placed by him on the decision of Avinash Kaur v. State 1963 AWR 302. This decision, however, is of no avail to the Applicants' learned Counsel for it takes the same view as has been taken by me above. It held that: In cases started otherwise than on a police report it is not the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy himself before the commencement of the trial that copies of the statements recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure have been furnished to the accused, nor can the holding of such trial be postponed till copies have been supplied or received by the accused persons. Further no responsibility has been placed upon the complainant to supply such copies. It shall be for the accused to himself apply for and obtain copies of statements recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure to enable him to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses with reference to earlier statements contained therein. 4. No grievance is made in the present case that the Magistrate was not prepared to accommodate the Applicants with an adjournment to enable them to obtain the requisite copies themselves. It is therefore clear that the law did not enjoin on the Magistrate to see that copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure were supplied to the Applicants before starting with the recording of the evidence against them. It is therefore clear that the law did not enjoin on the Magistrate to see that copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161, Code of Criminal Procedure were supplied to the Applicants before starting with the recording of the evidence against them. The first contention, therefore, fails and is rejected. 5. The second contention before me was that the sentence awarded to the Applicants was unduly severe and deserved reduction. I do not agree. As stated above the sentence awarded to the Applicants is six months' RI each, which, having regard to the number of injuries (12) caused to Ram Badan Singh, can not be said to be undeserved. This contention also therefore fails. 6. The result therefore is that the conviction and sentence of the Applicants are confirmed and their revision is dismissed. The Applicants were granted bail for the pendency of their revision. They shall surrender forthwith and serve out the sentences imposed upon them.