Judgment :- The petitioners are accused 1 to 9 in C.C. No. 205 of 1980 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class. Pathanamthitta. Initially, there were 11 accused but the cases of the A6 and A8 were separated as they were not available. They were charged under sections 143, 147, 149, 427, 447 and 506, I.P.C. 2. Briefly state the prosecution case is as follows : On 13-8-1980, at about 12.30 in the midnight the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object they trespassed into the property of P.W. 1 situated at Mangaram Muri of Konny Village. A1 and A3 demolished a portion of the compound wall on the eastern side of the property with iron rods, A4 and A6 levelled the soil with spades and all accused destroyed the cultivation A4 to A8 felled 10 rubber tress, 7 clove tress, two jack fruit trees, three arecanut trees, two coconut trees, and two mahagony trees and the accused tilled the soil east to west in a width of 3 meters 40 cms. with a view to lay a road. The accused caused damage to the foundation laid by P.W. 1 for constructing a building. When P.W. 1 interfered, A7 threatened him saying that he will be done away with. Loss to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- by reason of the damage was caused by the accused. 3. On the accused pleading not guilty, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and marked Exts. P1 and P8 and M.O. 1. In the statement under S. 313 of the Criminal P.C. the accused generally denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. On behalf of defence D.W. 1 was examined and Exts. D1 and D3 were marked. 4. Originally, there were 11 accused as per the complaint filed before the police. But after investigation charge was laid only against 8 accused. Ext. P8 report was filed by the police deleting the names of A3, A4 and A6 in the F.I.R. 5. Aggrieved by the deletion, P.W. 1 filed a complaint before the Magistrate. He took the sworn statement of P.W. 1 which is recorded as Ext. P5 and added the deleted names among the accused and proceeded on the complaint filed by the police. 6. Aggrieved by the deletion, P.W. 1 filed a complaint before the Magistrate. He took the sworn statement of P.W. 1 which is recorded as Ext. P5 and added the deleted names among the accused and proceeded on the complaint filed by the police. 6. After consideration of the evidence in the case the trial court held that the accused were guilty of the offences under sections 143, 147, 447 read with S. 149, and convicted them under those offences. They were found not guilty of the offence under S. 506(ii), I.P.C. A2 and A8 were released under the Probation of Offenders Act on executing a bond for Rs. 1,000/- each with two sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year from the date of the judgment and of good behaviour in the meantime. Other accused were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- each or in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under S. 143, I.P.C. to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under S. 147, I.P.C., to pay a fine of Rs/. 150/- each in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks under S. 427, I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under S. 427, I.P.C. 7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1982 before the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Petition against the conviction and sentence. 8. Admittedly, there were civil disputes between the parties. The case of the petitioners is that they have acted bona fide to protect their civil rights and they have not committed any offence. As a matter of fact, trial court observed that it did not want to enter finding as to the existence or otherwise of the pathway along the southern boundary of the property of P.W. 1. The case of the petitioners is that they have acted bona fide to protect their civil rights and they have not committed any offence. As a matter of fact, trial court observed that it did not want to enter finding as to the existence or otherwise of the pathway along the southern boundary of the property of P.W. 1. It has also come out in evidence that the complainant had filed O.P. 4 of 1980 before this court for police protection and this was dismissed in limine with a finding that it is a case of civil dispute. P.W. 1 took the matter in Writ Appeal no. 304 of 1980 which was also dismissed, holding that the civil and criminal cases are pending between parties and that it was not a fit case for bringing interference in the matter by police protection to the petitioners. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the light of the finding entered into by the trial court that it did not want to enter a finding as to the existence of the pathway and in view of dispute with regard to possession of disputed property trial court was not justified in convicting the petitioners under S. 447, I.P.C. and other sections. There is great force in the contention of the petitioners. In the nature of the controversy between the parties and the contentions raised by the parties in the civil case the dispute is essentially of civil nature and therefore conviction is not justifiable. 10. The counsel for the petitioners has raised another substantial contention. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence on the police charge. In the first information statement given by P.W. 1 before police he had implicated all the eleven accused but, after investigation the police came to the conclusion that no offence was made out, against the other accused (A3, A4 and A6 in the F.I.R.) and Ext. P8 report was submitted to the court to this effect. It is after that P.W. 1 filed a private complaint before the Magistrate implicating all the 11 accused. The learned Magistrate after examining P.W. 1 on oath, added the names of the deleted accused persons also in the police charge and proceeded with the case on the basis, that, all are accused in the police charge. It is after that P.W. 1 filed a private complaint before the Magistrate implicating all the 11 accused. The learned Magistrate after examining P.W. 1 on oath, added the names of the deleted accused persons also in the police charge and proceeded with the case on the basis, that, all are accused in the police charge. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that such a procedure is not warrant by the Criminal P.C. and has vitiated the entire proceedings. The names of P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 who were examined, were not cited by the police as witnesses and Exts. P2, P3, P4 and P5 which are some of the documents relied on by the trial court to come to the conclusion that P.W. 1 is in possession of the disputed property were not part of the documents relied on by the Police. Copies of these documents were not furnished to the petitioners as provided in S. 173 of the Criminal P.C. Since P.Ws. 4 and 6 were not cited as witnesses in the police charge their statements were not furnished. S. 207, Crl.P.C. requires the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of S. 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposed to examine as its witness and any other document or relevant extract thereof should be furnished to the accused. He also argued such amalgamation is not provided by court and it has caused prejudice to the petitioners. 11. Section 210(1) provides that when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the enquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of the enquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation. Sub-section (2) of the Section provides that if a report is made by the investigating police officer under S. 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is accused in the complaint case the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both cases were instituted on a police report. This is not a case where there was a private complaint and the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the private complaint and subsequently it was made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry that investigation by Police was in progress in relation to the offence which was the subject matter of the inquiry or trial held by him. Therefore S. 210 of the Criminal P.C. does not authorise the Magistrate to proceed as if both cases were instituted on police report. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to point out any other provisions which would enable the Magistrate to proceed in the manner in which he has done in this case. He had already taken cognizance of offence on the basis of the police report. While so private complaint was filed and he found that some of the names shown in the complaint were not in the array of accused in the case taken cognizance of on the police report. He simply added the omitted names. In the trial he made use of the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 6 who were not cited by the police and relied on their evidence as well as documents Exts. P2, P4, P5 and P6 which were not part of documents relied on by the police and forwarded to the Magistrate. The proceedings adopted by the learned Magistrate have caused prejudice to the accused since many of the documents cited by the Magistrate and the statements of P. W. 4 and P.W. 6 were not furnished to them. The entire trial has been vitiated by the illegal procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate. In view of the nature of the offence and passage of time I do not think that I will be justified in ordering a retrial. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The entire trial has been vitiated by the illegal procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate. In view of the nature of the offence and passage of time I do not think that I will be justified in ordering a retrial. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of the courts below are set aside, the accused are acquitted of all the offences with which they are charged. Fine if any paid, will be refunded to them. Petition allowed.