Order- The petitioners along with six others were put on trial in the Court of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Karkala, for offences under sections 447, 379, 324, 148 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code. 2. In respect of certain lands called “Tel-licherry properties” situated in Ulipady 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 11th May, 1966, 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 billhook and sickle causing her injuries. In the altercation, A-8 also sustained some 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 after 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 on 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 offences under section 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code. 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 offences under section 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code. 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 section 324, Indian Penal Code read with section 34, Indian Penal Code 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. Having rightly and correctly held that there are no materials for setting aside the order of discharge under section 447 and 379, Indian Penal Code, 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 section 324 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge himself concedes that the Magistrate disbelieved the 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 other. 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 section 324 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code as well. It seems to me, therefore, that the course of action pursued by the learned Sessions Judge cannot he supported by the provisions of section 436, Criminal Procedure Code. 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. S.V.S. -----Order setaside.