ORDER This petition is to revise the judgment of the First Class Magistrate, Bicholim, dated 26-9-69 and the Judgment of the Sessions Judge at Panjim, dated 31-12-69. 2. The facts necessary to be mentioned for the disposal of this petition are these :- P.W. 1 (first respondent herein) filed complaint dated 15-3-67 before J.F.C.M. Bicholim against the revision petitioners. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant, passed orders under Section 202, Criminal P.C., directing the police to make investigation and report within 20 days about the action taken by them. After the police submitted the report the Magistrate summoned revision petitioners and started the inquiry. He framed charges against the revision petitioners for offences under Section 143 and 427, Penal Code. The case of the complainant was that on 6th July, 1967, the revision petitioners formed into an unlawful assembly to demolish his house and in prosecution of their common object they came to his house and while revision petitioners 2 to 7 were standing near his house armed with sticks and stones the first revision petitioner went upon the roof of the house and threw down tiles, about 150 in number. In all 8 witnesses were examined for the prosecution and 3 witnesses were examined in defence. On the basis of the material on record the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences of which they were charged and convicted and sentenced them for those offences. The appeal filed by the revision petitioners was dismissed by the Sessions Judge at Panjim. Both the Courts are of the opinion that revision petitioners formed into unlawful assembly to demolish the house of the complainant and that in furtherance of their common object the first revision petitioner threw down the tiles from the roof of the house while the other revision petitioners were standing near the house armed with sticks and stones. 3. It is said that after the revision petition was filed in this Court the second revision petitioner died. His Court the second revision as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Today on behalf of the second revision petitioner, his widow appeared through advocate in this Court. I have heard his arguments. 4. 3. It is said that after the revision petition was filed in this Court the second revision petitioner died. His Court the second revision as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Today on behalf of the second revision petitioner, his widow appeared through advocate in this Court. I have heard his arguments. 4. The learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioners arguing before me on the following points, contends that the lower Courts erred in convicting the revision petitioners and that the revision petitioners are fit to be acquitted :- (1) The charge framed by the Magistrate is not proper as date of offence is not mentioned in it. (2) The Magistrate, after recording the statement of the complainant, directed the police under Section 202, Criminal P.C. to investigate. He had no jurisdiction to direct the Police to investigate after he recorded the statement of the complainant. (3) While directing the police to investigate under Section 202 Criminal P.C. the Magistrate did not give reasons for giving such direction so he acted against law and he had no jurisdiction to take the complaint on file. (4) There was delay in filing the complaint. (5) Copies of the statements recorded by the police during the investigation made under Section 202, Criminal P.C. were not supplied to the revision petitioners and hence there was miscarriage of justice. (6) For the offence under Section 143, Penal Code private complaint could not be filed. (7) Common object of the revision petitioners is not at all established, (8) The sentence awarded is severe. 5. I shall now consider how far there is strength in the arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioners. No doubt the date of offence is not mentioned in the charge framed by the Magistrate but that date is mentioned in the complaint filed by P.W. 1 and in the deposition of P.W. 1 Section 537, Criminal P.C. lays down that on the basis of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge no judgment of a competent court will be reversed in appeal or revision unless it has in fact occasioned failure of justice. The revision petitioners did not state in the Magistrate's Court that the charge was not properly framed. The revision petitioners did not state in the Magistrate's Court that the charge was not properly framed. When such an objection was not taken in the Magistrate's Court it cannot now be contended that the omission to mention date of offence in the charge was caused prejudice to the revision petitioners. The contention of the revision petitioners that because the Magistrate recorded the statement of P.W. 1 under Section 200, Criminal P.C. before directing the police to investigate under Section 202 Criminal P.C. he had no jurisdiction to direct the police to make investigation, is against law. Proviso to Section 202 Criminal P.C. clearly lays down that before directing the police to investigate under Section 202 Criminal P.C. the Magistrate will record the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Criminal P.C. Undoubtedly it was incumbent on the Magistrate to record reasons for directing the police to investigate under S. 202 Criminal P.C. but failure to record such reasons does not vitiate the proceedings. Merely because the Magistrate did not record reasons for his directing the police to investigate under Section 202 Criminal P.C. it cannot be said that he acted without jurisdiction or he had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint was filed by P.W. 1 in Court after he approached the police twice on the very next day of the offence he had filed petition in the Police. The Police, through one M. L. A., tried for compromise. When the compromise failed the complainant again filed application in police to take action. When no action was taken by the police the complainant came to Court. The delay in filing the complaint has been satisfactorily explained. Besides this, the delay in filing the complaint will have importance only when there is ground to believe that the facts alleged had not at all occurred. In this case neighbours have been examined to show that tiles from the roof of the complainant's house were removed and thrown down. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to the effect that copies of the statements of witnesses recorded by the police enquiry under Section 202, Criminal P.C. should be supplied to the accused. In this case the revision petitioners did not ask for the supply of those statements when the case was pending in Magistrate's Court. For this reason it cannot be said that there was miscarriage of justice. In this case the revision petitioners did not ask for the supply of those statements when the case was pending in Magistrate's Court. For this reason it cannot be said that there was miscarriage of justice. The contention that no private person can file complaint for the offence under Section. 143, Criminal P.O. (Penal Code-Ed.) is against the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioners, relying on the decision In re Malayil Kottayil Koyassan Kutty; 18 Cri.L.J. 329 = (AIR 1918 Mad. 494) contended that police alone could file complaint for the offence under S. 143, Criminal P.C. (Penal Code - Ed.) I have gone through that decision. In that case police had filed first charge-sheet for the offence under Section 143 and it had withdrawn the case. Later on the complainant filed complaint for the same offence. In view of the peculiar circumstances of that case it has filed that the complainant had no independent right to have the guilty persons punished. That case is not applicable to the facts of this case. The Magistrate did not frame charge for the offence under Section 149, Penal Code. The revision petitioners relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216 contend that Section 149, Penal Code creates a specific offence and deals with the punishment of that offence alone and that where the accused are not charged under Section 149, Penal Code the appellate court would require strong reasons for using that section, even if it be possible to convict under that section in the absence of a specific charge. In view of that decision of the Supreme Court it cannot be said that even if there is evidence on record to convict a person under Section 149, Penal Code he cannot be convicted by the appellate Court. The appellate court must have strong reasons to convict a person under Section 149, Penal Code when no charge for that offence has been framed by the trial Court. This Court has to see whether there is reliable evidence in this case to prove that the revision petitioners formed into unlawful assembly with the common object to demolish the house of the complainant and in furtherance of that common object the house was demolished. This Court has to see whether there is reliable evidence in this case to prove that the revision petitioners formed into unlawful assembly with the common object to demolish the house of the complainant and in furtherance of that common object the house was demolished. Both the Courts have held that the common object is proved and it is also proved that in furtherance of the common object tiles were removed from the roof of the complainant's house. In the interests of justice I have gone through the evidence adduced by the prosecution. P.Ws. 2, 6 and 8 are important witnesses in this case. P.W. 2 speaks that some persons gathered at the house of the complainant arming themselves with sticks and stones and that some persons climbed on the roof of the complainant's house. She cannot identify those persons. P.W. 6 stated that he had seen the revision petitioners 2 to 7 standing armed with sticks in the verandah of the complainant's house while the first revision petitioner was throwing down tiles from the roof of the complainant's house. P.W. 8 is the wife of the complainant. The complainant was not present when the offences were being committed. P.W. 8 supports the evidence of P.W. 6 and states that she was dragged out of the house by the first revision petitioner. It is not found in the evidence of P.W. 8 that the persons who were standing near the house were armed with sticks. P.W. 8 was not questioned whether the respondents 2 to 7 were armed with sticks or stones. That omission cannot affect the case of the complainant. There is nothing to say that P.W. 2 unjustly sided the complainant. She said that the persons who had come to the house of the complainant were armed with sticks and stones. Those persons, according to P.W. 8, were the revision petitioners. About P.W. 6 it is stated that because he told in chief examination alone that he had told the revision petitioners 1 and 3 some days after the commission of the offence that they had committed acts which were worse than the acts committed by the Jews against Jesus Christ, his evidence should not be believed. About P.W. 6 it is stated that because he told in chief examination alone that he had told the revision petitioners 1 and 3 some days after the commission of the offence that they had committed acts which were worse than the acts committed by the Jews against Jesus Christ, his evidence should not be believed. P.W. 6, after giving the facts seen by him on the date of the offence, stated that about 5 days after the commission of the offence revision petitioners 1 and 3 and another person had told him at Panjim that they had all joined against the complainant and that it was not known as to how he was coming to give evidence on behalf of the complainant in spite of his belonging to the same community. After stating thus, he (P.W. 6) stated that he had told revision petitioners, 1 and 3 and the other persons that their acts were worse than the acts of Jews. If the witness felt like that and told like that it cannot be said that he is an interested witness. That was his feeling. In Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202 , it has been held to the effect that till it is established that the second were not present at the alleged scene of offence only as spectators they cannot be convicted for offence under Sections 143 and 149, I.P.C. In a case for offences under Sections 143 and 149, I.P.C., it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused had acted in prosecution of the common object of the assembly. Till that fact is proved the accused cannot be convicted. To establish common object there cannot be direct evidence. From the established facts the Court will have to come to the conclusion whether the accused were members of unlawful assembly or whether they were present at the scene of offence as mere spectators. On the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 6 and 8. I come to the conclusion that the revision petitioners were present at the scene of offence in furtherance of their common object and that in furtherance of the common object of their assembly the first revision petitioner removal about 150 tiles from the roof of complainant's house and threw them on the ground. 6. 2, 6 and 8. I come to the conclusion that the revision petitioners were present at the scene of offence in furtherance of their common object and that in furtherance of the common object of their assembly the first revision petitioner removal about 150 tiles from the roof of complainant's house and threw them on the ground. 6. The last point argued on behalf of the revision petitioners is about the severity of the sentence. The offences were committed in 1967. The Magistrate delivered his judgment 2 years after the complaint was filed. The house of the complainant was not totally demolished by the revision petitioners. All that had been done is that about 150 tiles were removed from the roof of the house of the complainant. Considering these facts I feel it just and proper to set aside the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioners 1 and 3 to 7 and reduce the fine imposed on all petitioners. 7. For the reasons given above the revision petition is allowed in part. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the revision petitioners 1 and 3 to 7 is set aside. Each of revision petitioners 1 and 3 to 7 is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 143, I.P.C. instead of sentence of 2 months' R.I. awarded by the trial Court. The sentence of fine awarded for the offence under Section 127, I.P.C., is reduced. For that offence each revision petitioner will pay fine of Rs. 400/.. The order about compensation awarded by the lower Court is upheld. In default to pay the fine for the offence under Section 143, I.P.C., the defaulting revision petitioner will undergo S.I. for one month. In default to pay fine for the offences under Section 427, I.P.C., the defaulting revisions petitioners except the revision petitioner No. 2 will undergo S. I. for three months. Fine of Rs. 400/- imposed on second revision petitioner be collected as per law from the properties left by him. Revision partly allowed.