( 1 ) THE petitioners along with 6 others were put on trial in the court of of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Karkala for offences under Ss. 447 379, 324, 148 read with S. 149 I. P. C. ( 2 ) IN respect of certain lands called "tehchery properties" situated in ulipody village in Karkala Taluk, there was a dispute between Gundu rukka-Shetty the husband of P. W. 1 Rathi Shedthi on the one hand and the accused on the other. Gundu Rukka Shetty was claiming to be in possession of a part of this property and others claiming to be also in possession of the same. It is an admitted fact that the accused persons were cultivating the major portion of this property and the dispute was only in respect of a small area. On 11-5-66, the accused persons went to the land and began to cut the crop. At that time, P. W. 1, Rathi Shedthi, wife of gundu Rukka Shetty, obstructed them. There was exchange of words between them. According to Rathi Shedthi, A-1, A-2, A-7, and A-8 assaulted her with bill-hook and sickle causing her injuries. In the altercation, a-8 also sustained seme injuries. Dr. Shama Shetty, who is examined as one of the witnesses in this case, has stated that both Rathi-Shedthi and a-8 had sustained minor injuries. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate, after discussing the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the accused had not committed theft of the crop belonging to Rathi Shedthi nor had trespassed into her land. He also came to the conclusion that A-1, A-2, A-7 and A-8 did not assault P. W. 1. He was of the opinion that even though p. W. 1 sustained injuries in the evidence he came to the conclusion that she did not sustain those injuries in the manner as stated by her and her witnesses. In the result, he discharged all the accused persons of all the charges. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this decision, a revision petition was filed before the sessions Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore, who, by his order dated 20th february 1970, agreed with the decision of the trial court in respect of discharge of the accused persons for oftences under Ss. In the result, he discharged all the accused persons of all the charges. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by this decision, a revision petition was filed before the sessions Judge, South Kanara, Mangalore, who, by his order dated 20th february 1970, agreed with the decision of the trial court in respect of discharge of the accused persons for oftences under Ss. 447 and 379 I. P. C. But, however, he was of the view that there was sufficient material to hold that there was prima facie case against A-1, A-2, A-7 and A-8 for having assaulted P. W. 1. In that view, he directed the trial court to frame charge against them for an offence under S. 324 I. P. C. read with S. 34 I. P. C. and to try them and dispose of the case according to law. In these circumstances, this revision petition has been filed by these four petitioners. ( 5 ) HAVING rightly and correctly held that there are no materials for setting as'de the order of discharge under Ss, 447 and 379 I. P. C. , the learned sessions Judge, in my opinion, was not justified in directing the trial court to frame a charge against the petitioners for an offence under S. 324 read with S. 34 I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge himself concedes that the magistrate disbelieved the witnesses and nothing contra has been said against that reasoning. In these circumstances, I do not think that it is open to the learned Judge to bisect the order of discharge into two component parts confirming one part and setting aside the order. The order of discharge must be taken and read as a whole and as it appears that the magistrate did not accept the testimony of the witnesses, it necessarily follows that non-acceptance would amount to a disbelief of the evidence regarding the offence under S. 324 read with S. 34 I. P. C. as well. It seems to me, therefore, that the course of action pursued by the learned sessions Judge cannot be supported by the provisions of S. 436 Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) SUCH being the case, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside and accordingly I set aside the same and confirm the order of the trial court. --- *** --- .