( 1 ) THIS is a petition by the accused in CC. No. 132 of 1972 on the file of the JMFC. Mangalore. By the said judgment, the Magistrate had convicted the accused on a charge under S. 94 of the Mysore Police Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20. ( 2 ) THE charge is that on 26-12-1971 at about 1-20 p. m. the accused wilfully entered the premises in the possession of PW. 1 and his father. On behalf of the prosecution three witnesses have been examined, PW. 1 is none other than the brother of the petitioner. It is in evidence that the has been staying with his parents and that the petitioner was staying separately from them. It is also averred that his father had objected to the visit of the petitioner. On the day in question, the petitioner is said to have entered the premises in the occupation of PW. 1 and his parents. At that time he had a wooden reaper in his hand and was proclaiming that none should enter the house. PW. 2 is a servant of PW. 1. He has also spoken to the fact of the entry by the petitioner in the manner stated by pw. 1. PW. 3 is a Head Constable, who also corroborates these two witnesses. The only discrepancy nf any significance between their versions is with regard to the portion entered upon by the petitioner. FW. 1 has stated that when the police came the petitioner was moving about in front of the house. PW. 2 has started that he was moving about inside the compound. PW. 3 has stated that he was in the dwelling house. If one remembers that the house had a compound, and "there was some open space between the dwelling house proper and the compound, this discrepancy would not be of any materiality. ( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that having regard to the provisions of Sec. 94 of the Police Act, which speaks of 'dwelling house' this discrepancy would indicate that the witnesses were not at all sure as to where the petitioner was in the context of such entry. The word 'dwelling house' used in this section would, in my opinion, take within 'its ambit the entire premises including the house proper and the land appurtenant to it. The word 'dwelling house' used in this section would, in my opinion, take within 'its ambit the entire premises including the house proper and the land appurtenant to it. Some argument was addressed as regards the wilful nature or otherwise of such entry by the petitioner. The contention of smt. Anasuya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner had every right to visit his father who was the owner of the house. This argument would have had some substance had it not been for the fact that the petitioner was armed with a wooden club such as the reaper and has been proclaiming in so many words that he would not permit any one to enter the house. Clearly therefore, the entry by 'the petitioner was witful falling within the ambit of Section 94 of the Police Act. But the point urged by Smt. Anasuya, bearing on the question of compliance with the provisions of S. 342 Crpc seems to me to be well founded. ( 4 ) IT is her contention that the prominent features of the evidence recorded by the Court below were not at all put to the petitioner as required both by the provisions of Ss. 244 and 342 Crpc. It is not disputed that there was no such examination of the accused by the Court below. But, what is contended on behalf of the State is that such non-examinaion would not perse vitiate the conviction. In support of that submission reliance was placed on certain observations of the Supreme Court in Ajit Kumar chowdhry v. State of Bihar AIR, 1972 SC. 2058. That decision is to the effect that every error or omission in complying with the provisions of S. 342 Crpc would not vitiate the conviction, unless it is further shown that such omission has caused prejudice to the accused. It is seen from the facts of that case that certain important circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused had been omitted to be put to the accused in his examination under S. 342 Crpc. That is not the same thing as saying that in a case of a total non-examination of an accused under S. 342 Crpc it would further require the ingredient of prejudice to the accused to be established. That is not the same thing as saying that in a case of a total non-examination of an accused under S. 342 Crpc it would further require the ingredient of prejudice to the accused to be established. In the instant case, there has been no examination of the petitioner at all with reference to the circumstances appearing against him. But, it is contended that having regard to the fact that the facts of the case lay in a narrow compass and the charge was a simple one, there would not have been any further say for the accused in addition to the earlier plea of not-guilty. I am unable to accede to such a proposition. If the circumstances appearing in the evidence with reference to the evidence of the witnesses had been brought to the notice of the accused either in a general or in a particular way, it was possible for him to have given some explanation. If such an explanation is furnished it was the bounden duty of the Court to have considered the same before holding the accused guilty of the offence charged with. That opportunity has been denied to the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is next contended on behalf of the State that the case should be remitted for further enquiry to the trial Court. Having regard to the minor nature of the offence and the time that has elapsed from the date of the commission of it I do not think that it is a fit case in which the accused should be called upon to face a further trial. For the above reasons, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The and sentence passed by the JMFC. Mangalore, in CC. No. 132 of 1972 are hereby set aside. The petitioner stands acquitted. The fine if paid, will be refunded. --- *** --- .