ORDER Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - In this petition in revision as well as in Cr. Revs. Nos. 415, 416, 417, 756, 757, 758 and 759 of 1965, common questions of law and facts are involved and that this is the reason why they have been grouped together. All the petitions can be disposed of by a common order by me. 2. The Petitioners in all the petitions were convicted under one or the other of Sections 409, 120-B or 477-A of the IPC and were awarded various sentences by the trial Magistrate. There were a number of appeals filed before the Sessions Judge by the Petitioners. The Sessions Judge allowed all the appeals set aside the conviction of the Petitioners but directed that the cases be sent back to the trial court for retrial. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the accused have filed the present revision petitions in this Court. 4. The grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge set aside the orders of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate in all the cases are only two fold. The first ground is that the charges framed by the learned Magistrate against the accused were defective and incorrect in material particulars and the second ground is that appropriate questions were not put to the accused u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned Sessions Judge, this defect in the charge and interrogation of the accused u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the entire trial and the order of conviction passed by the trial Magistrate was for that reason liable to be set aside. 5. In support of this revision petition, I have heard Mr. Shekhar Saran at some length. It has been urged that this revision petition should be allowed and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in all the cases be set aside and all the cases be sent back to the court of the learned Sessions Judge for disposal of the appeals on merits. 6. It has been pointed out that it was not the case of the accused before the learned Sessions Judge that their cause had been prejudiced, on account of any defect in the charge or defect in their examination u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. It has been pointed out that it was not the case of the accused before the learned Sessions Judge that their cause had been prejudiced, on account of any defect in the charge or defect in their examination u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure. I have perused the grounds of appeal which were filed before the learned Sessions Judge and I have failed to find any indication of such a grievance having been made against the order of the trial court on behalf of the accused. From the perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge also it does not appear that it was urged before him that the orders of conviction were liable to be quashed on the ground that the cause of accused had been prejudiced on account of defect in charge or defect in their examination u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure. The Learned Counsel for the State has urged that the defects in the charges framed have caused prejudice to the prosecution case. I am, however, unable to accept that contention because I do not find any legal foundation for the same. A defect in the charge unless it is material will not vitiate the trial. A defect could only be material If it caused prejudice to the accused persons, there may be a defect which may cause prejudice to the prosecution but that detect is not a material defect Within the meaning of Section 225 Code of Criminal Procedure so as to vitiate the trial in its entirety. Section 223 Code of Criminal Procedure devotes itself to consideration of the effect of errors during the course of trial and is couched in the following language: No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the Charge; and no omission to state the offence or those particulars; shall be regarded at any stage of the base as material; unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission; and it has Occasioned a failure of justice. 7. Prejudice to the prosecution is not a relevant consideration u/s 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Prejudice to the prosecution is not a relevant consideration u/s 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact the prosecutor must be presumed to know his own case against the accused and must discharge his duty to prove that case, the defect of the charge or a defective examination of the accused u/s 34 Code of Criminal Procedure can not have the effect of making it possible for the prosecutor to forget his own case Perusal of the Various sections of Ch. XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure would go to show that the basic purpose of the procedure of framing of charge and examination of the accused u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure is to forewarn the accused of the case that he is called Upon to meet. The procedure is for the safety and benefit of the accused and not to serve any such purpose for the prosecution. Section 221 Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the offence with which the accused is charged shall be stated and the specified name of the offence with sufficient description, the implications of the charge; and previous conviction; if any are the matters which are required to be stated in the charge. The statement of all the above matters, on the face of it; is for the safety of the accused and not for the facility of the prosecution. I am therefore, clearly of the view that the prosecution cannot urge that the case of the prosecution has been prejudiced On account of a defect in the charge framed and hold that under those circumstances that defect Cannot be deemed to be material within the meaning Section 225 Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance has been placed for the revisionists on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Abinash Chandra Bose v. Bimal Krishna Sen 1963 AWR 145 SC. It has been Urged that a retrial Could not be directed Unless there were unusual and exceptional circumstances surrounding the case. In that case; the prosecution had neglected to prove certain documents which went to the root of the matter and the object of the direction for retrial was probably to enable the prosecution to fill Up the lacuna in its evidence. I may usefully quote the observation made by the Supreme. In that case; the prosecution had neglected to prove certain documents which went to the root of the matter and the object of the direction for retrial was probably to enable the prosecution to fill Up the lacuna in its evidence. I may usefully quote the observation made by the Supreme. Court in that Case: In all civilised countries ;criminal jurisprudence has firmly established the rule that ah accused person should not be placed on trial for the same offence more than once except in every exceptional circumstances in this case the complainant had the fullest opportunity of adducing all the evidence that he was advised would be necessary to prove the charge against the accused person. It was not that he prayed for the examination of an expert and that opportunity had been denied to him. The prosecution took its chance of having a decision in its favour on the evidence adduced by it before the trial court. That Court was not satisfied that that evidence was adequately reliable to bring the charge home to the accused. The accused was thus acquitted. 8. My attention has also been invited to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ukha Kolhe v. The State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1531 . View similar to the One noted above in the other case has been taken in this case also, but it is necessary to quote in observation made in this case for a different purpose: An order for retrial of a Criminal case is made in exceptional bases; and not unless the Appellate Court is satisfied that the court trying the proceeding had no jurisdiction to try it or that the trial was Vitiated by serious illegalities of irregularities of on account of misconception of the nature of the proceedings and on that account in substance there had been no real trial of that the Prosecutor or an accused was; for reasons over which he had no control, prevented from leading or tendering evidence material to the charge; and in the interests of justice the appellate Court deems it appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the accused should be put on His trial again. An order of retrial wipes out from the record the earlier proceeding and exposes the person accused to another trial which affords the prosecutor an opportunity to rectify the infirmities disclosed in the earlier trial and will not ordinarily be countenanced when it is made merely to enable the prosecutor to lead evidence which he could but has not cared to lead either on account of insufficient appreciation of the nature of the case or for other reasons. 9. It is true that in both the decisions of the Supreme Court relied upon by the revisionists, the retrial was directed by Courts below because, the Prosecutor had omitted to adduce adequate evidence. In the instant case, this was not the real consideration in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge, but the real consideration was regarding the defect in the charge. But can it be said that the Prosecutor did not have any control over the matter as indicated in the last mentioned Supreme Court case. I am of the view that it was the duty, of the Prosecutor to point out to he learned trial Magistrate that the charges that he had framed were such which could result in prejudice to the cause of the accused and also to point out, to the learned Magistrate, that the accused had not been fairly examined u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure. If the Prosecutor did not agree to stake his case on the erroneous charge-sheet and unjust examination of the accused, the defect in the charge and the infirmity in the questions put u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure could have been removed at the initial stage of the case. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any such steps were taken by the prosecution to get the charges rectified or to get appropriate questions put to the accused u/s 342 Code of Criminal Procedure. No attempt at all has been made to explain this omission on the part of the prosecution, consequently, the instant case is fully covered by the principle of law laid down in Ukha Kolhe v. The State of Maharashtra (supra). I am, therefore, I convinced that the direction for a retrial I of the cases was necessitated on account of laches of the prosecution. This cannot be permitted to be done. 10. I am, therefore, I convinced that the direction for a retrial I of the cases was necessitated on account of laches of the prosecution. This cannot be permitted to be done. 10. For all the above reasons, I allow all the revision petitions, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge and direct that all the cases be sent back to the learned Sessions Judge so that he may decide the appeals on merits and dispose them of according to law. The learned Sessions Judge will keep in mind the opinion expressed by me in those orders.