( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Special First class Magistrate, Kolar Gold Fields in C. C. No. 2872 of 1968 on his file, acquitting the three accused persons in that case. ( 2 ) P. R. Venkataslua (PW. 1) gave a complaint in the Bethamangala police Station against the three accused. The Head Constable (PW. 7) registered a case in Crime No. 120/68 under S. 379 IPC. The chargesheet was filed in the Court below by the Sub-Inspector of that Station. The learned Magistrate framed a charge against the three accused for an offence under S. 379 IPC. They pleaded not guilty. For the prosecution seven witnesses were examined. The accused were next questioned under s. 342 Crl. P. C. They examined one defence witness. ( 3 ) THE State has not come up in appeal. This Revision Petition is filed by the complainant PW. 1. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are respectively accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The 4th respondent is the Stale. The learned public Prosecutor represented that his role in this petition was only to assist the Court. ( 4 ) THE complaint Ex. P-1 was received by the Station House Officer viz. , the Head Constable (PW. 1) at 8-15 A. M. on 11-12-1968 as seen from the endorsement at Ex. P-1 (a ). It complains of a theft of groundnut crops from the land in Survey No. 242 of Bethamangala village, belonging to one G. R. Jayaramareddy, the employer of the complainant PW. 1, at about 11 P. M. on the preceding night viz. , the night of 10-12-1968. The first information report was received in the Court below at 12 Noon on 12-12-1968, as is evident from the Magistrate's endorsement thereon. The spot mahazar Ex. P-2 which was compiled on 11-12-1968 bv the investigating Officer viz. , the Head Constable (PW 7) puts the occurrence at 11 P. M. on the night of 10-11-1968, instead of 10-12-1968. However, the preamble of Ex. P-2 recited that it was drawn up on 11-12-1968. The head Constable (PW. 7) has put the same date 11-12-1968 below his signature at the end of Ex. P-2. ( 5 ) ADOPTING ' 11p. M. on 10-11-1968' from the Mahazar Ex. P-2 the charge framed against the accused mentions that time and date. However, the preamble of Ex. P-2 recited that it was drawn up on 11-12-1968. The head Constable (PW. 7) has put the same date 11-12-1968 below his signature at the end of Ex. P-2. ( 5 ) ADOPTING ' 11p. M. on 10-11-1968' from the Mahazar Ex. P-2 the charge framed against the accused mentions that time and date. The accused persons had to meet the charges accordingly, and the trial Court proceeded with the case. After completion of arguments on 26-9-1969, the assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State, filed an application to amend the charge so as to lead 'on 10-12-68' instead of 'on 10-11-68'. The advocate for the accused filed objections. In the judgment itself, delivered on 29-9-1969, the learned Magisrate has deal with this petition and rejected it. The relevant paragraphs are 4, 5 and 6, as below:"4. After completion of arguments, when it was pointed out by the learned Advocate for the accused that the date mentioned in the charge sheet and Mahazar are 11-10-1968 and the evidence let is that the offence has been committed on 10-12-1968, the learned Advocate for the complainant and APP. have made an application for the amendment of the charge as 10-12-1968 instead of 10-11-1968. 5. This application was strongly opposed by the Advocate for the accused saying that such permission should not be granted at this last stage which is likely to prejudice the case of the accused. The advocate for the complainant relied upon the observations of Supreme court reported in AIR. 1963 at page No 1696 which reads as follows: ' The requirement of S. 222 (1) is that the accused person must have a reasonably sufficient notice as to the case against him. The basic requirement in every criminal trial, therefore, is that the charge must be so framed as to give the accused person a fairly reasonable idea as to the case which he is to face, and the validity of the charge must in each case be determined by application of the test, namely, had the accused a reasonably sufficient notice of the matter with which he was charged? Where it is possible to specify precisely the necessary particulars required by S 222 (1) the prosecution ought to mention the said particulars in the charge, but where the said particulars cannot be precisely specified in the charge having regard to the nature of the information available to the prosecution, failure to mention such partculars may not invalidate the charge '. 6. Although it is possible to infer from the FIR and the semuence of events that the offence alleged to have been committed is on 10-12-68 not on 10-11-1968, the application for amendment of the charge at this late stage, is not advisable. During the course of the entire trial, the prosecution has not made any attempt to get the maharar or the charge amended After the completion of arguments on both the sides, amendment of charge will serve no useful purpose. Hence, the application was rejected. Besides charge cannot be amended unless mahazar date is amended. " ( 6 ) THE date 11-10-1968 mentioned in paragraph 4 is obviously a mistake for 10-11-1968 At paragraph 5. the learned Magistrate appears to have misinterpreted the observations of the Supreme Court. Where it is possible to specify preciselv the necossary particulars required by S. 222 (1), cr. P. C. . the prosecution is bound to mention those particulars in the charge. In the instant case, those particulars were easily available from the complaint Ex. P-1 of PW. 1, followed bv the First Information Report. The error crept in. in the mahazar Ex. P-2 and it was perpetuated The view of the learned Magistrate at paragraph 6 of the judpment that after the completion of the arguments on both sides amendment of charge will serve no useful purpose and that the charpe cannot be amended unless the mahazar date is amended, is manifestly erroneous ( 7 ) SRI V. K. Govindarajulu, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, has placed several decisions before me Besides the one mentioned by the court below in its judgment, I shall refer only to three rulings which are the most appropriate here. In the Supreme Court ruling in Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR. 1953 SC 196. their Lordships observe thus:"the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under s. 439, Crl. In the Supreme Court ruling in Stephens v. Nosibolla, AIR. 1953 SC 196. their Lordships observe thus:"the revisional jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under s. 439, Crl. P. C. , is not to be lightly exercised, when it is invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal, against which the government has a right of appeal under S. 417. It could be exercised only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice. " ( 8 ) IN Deokaram Das Agarwalla v. Umasankar Bajpai, AIR. 1955 NUC. 1538. the following extract is found of a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta Highcourt:"after all, it was the duty of the Magistrate to draw up the proper charge and as he has failed to do so the matter should not be allowed to rest there; but even at the stage when prosecution witnesses were cross-examined and defence witnesses were also examined and the case was fixed for arguments the Magistrate should draw up a charge". ( 9 ) IN Akhama Singh v. Union Territory of Manipur, AIR. 1961 Manipur 5. the following observations are found:"where in the course of a trial, the Magistrate finds at any time before judgment is pronounced that the trial has proceeded on imperfect or erroneous charges, it is his duty to alter or amend the charge and read and explain the altered or amended charge to the accused and recall the witnesses if either the Prosecutor or the accused persons want it and to further examine the witness with respect to the altered or amended charge. " ( 10 ) AFTER rejecting the application for amendment of the charge, the learned Magistrate in his judgment proceeds to discuss the evidence of the witnesses. With the background of the incorrect charge in his mind, he has observed finally thus:"one thing is certain that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have committed theft on the night of 10-11-68. This is the charge which the accused were called upon to answer. The accused cannot be convicted for an offence alleged to have been committed on 10-12-68 which they had not been called to answer. This is the charge which the accused were called upon to answer. The accused cannot be convicted for an offence alleged to have been committed on 10-12-68 which they had not been called to answer. " ( 11 ) THE adoption of the above attitude by the Court below is a manifest illegality resulting in gross miscarriage of justice, particularly when it is the prosecution case that accused Nos. 1 and 3 were caught redhanded on the night of 10-12-68 with the plucked groundnut plants (M. O. 1) and three spades (M. O. 2), the second accused having run away. I must here remark that it is indeed strange that the learned Magistrate has passed no order of disposal regarding the three spades (M. O. 2 ). ( 12 ) THE impugned order of the Court below calls for interference in revision. This revision petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the court below. The learned Magistrate will amend the charge and then proceed with the case according to law. --- *** --- .