LINGARAJA RATH, J. ( 1 ) ORDER :- The petitioner were prosecuted in G. R. Case No. 722 of 1977. Petitioners 1 and 2 were convicted under Ss. 323/325/342 IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for three months on each count with direction for the sentences to run concurrently. Petitioners 3 and 5 were convicted under S. 323 IPC and sentenced to R. I. for fifteen days and petitioners 4 and 6 were convicted under Ss. 323/342 IPC and sentenced to R. I. for one month on each count with direction for the sentences to run concurrently. Their appeal preferred against the aforesaid convictions and sentences having failed, they have preferred the present revision. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case as revealed is that on 19-9-77 when P. Ws. 1 and accompanied by P. Ws. 2 and 3 were proceeding towards Jaipur to attend the court of the Executive Magistrate in connection with Criminal Misc. Case No. 224/76 under S. 107 Cr. P. C. between P. Ws. 1 and 4 and the petitioners they were ambushed by the petitioners. P. W. 1 while was retreating seeing the assault on P. W. 4, his father, was surrounded by the petitioners restraining his attempt of withdrawal from the scene and was dealt lathi blows. Having been severely beaten P. W. 1 dragged himself to a nearby bush and thereafter swam across a river and reported the matter at the police station. The defence of the petitioners was one of denial with a further plea of the case having been falsely fabricated to entangle them because of the admitted enmity and litigation between the parties. The prosecution case was sought to be established through the evidence of the informant P. W. 1, his father P. W. 4 and the two other witnesses who had accompanied them, P. Ws. 2 and 3, as also the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 9 who ware the immediate post occurrence witnesses. ( 3 ) MR. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in assailing the convictions urged that the very charges against the petitioners were grossly defective being vague and without any description of the particulars of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. He also further urged certain aspects in the evidence so as to discredit the prosecution story. ( 4 ) SO far as the complaint of Mr. He also further urged certain aspects in the evidence so as to discredit the prosecution story. ( 4 ) SO far as the complaint of Mr. Mohanty regarding defective charges is concerned, it appears that the petitioners were charged of having caused grievous hurt to P. Ws. 1 and 4 on 19-9-77 at about 5 a. m. and thereby having committed an offence punishable under S. 325, IPC. It is the submission of Mr. Mohanty that without the petitioners having been, told as to how and which part of the body and on whom out of P. Ws. 1 and 4 they had caused grievous hurt, the petitioners were prejudiced and the trial has become vitiated since it was disclosed in the evidence that only P. W. 1 was found to have suffered a grievous hurt with a fracture of the scapula. ( 5 ) THE submission of Mr. Mohanty does not appear to be of any substance. Even if it is taken that the charge did not contain the name of the place where the occurrence was committed or that the manner in which the grievous hurt was caused had not been stated, yet the provisions of Ss. 215 and 464, Cr. P. C. offer sufficient protection against the failure of prosecution on that count. S. 215 states that no error in either stating the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice. S. 464, Cr. P. C. provides that no finding, sentence are order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, commission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been accessioned thereby. In AIR 1956 SC 116 : (1956 Cri LJ 291) Willie Williom Glaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh on which reliance was placed by Mr. In AIR 1956 SC 116 : (1956 Cri LJ 291) Willie Williom Glaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh on which reliance was placed by Mr. Mohanty, it was held, on analysing different article of the old Code that it is conclusive to show that no error or omission in the charge and not even a total absence of charge cuts at the root of the trial and that such facts shall not be considered material unless two conditions are fulfilled both of which are matters of fact, (1) that the accused has in fact been misled by it and (2) it has occasioned a failure of justice. The onus of establishing such fact would be on the accused who may of course establish it from the very evidence led by the prosecution and the records and may not lead any evidence for the purpose, but however it is plainly clear that there cannot be any presumption of such facts. Mr. Mohanty has not been able to discharge such onus in any manner and has not been able to show the petitioners to have been misled in any manner or there having been any consequential failure of justice on that count. The petitioners admittedly must have been supplied with copies of the police papers including the report of the X-ray examination showing the fracture of P. W. 1 and were aware of the facts constituting the prosecution case So far as the exception taken by Mr. Mohanty to the charges framed under Ss. 323 and 342, IPC is concerned apart from the fact that such grievance has no substance for the same reasons it is also to be noted that both these offences were triable by summons procedure where no charge was necessary to be framed and only because the offence under S. 325, IPC was also tagged to these Sections, the case against the petitioners became triable under the warrant procedure. The submission of Mr. Mohanty must accordingly fail. The submission of Mr. Mohanty must accordingly fail. ( 6 ) THE next submission is that the conviction under S. 325, IPC was not warranted because their causing grievous hurt to P. W. 1 only appears from the evidence of the doctor P. W. 11 who conducted the X-ray examination and proved the report, but the X-ray examination was held three days after the occurrence on 22-9-77 and the I. O. , P. W. 10, also did not say of having sent any requisition for the X-ray examination of P. W. 1. The submission has again no merit since it is the very evidence of P. W. 11, the medical officer, that the X-ray examination was done on requisition though the requisition was not available on record. A reference to Ext. 7, the report itself, shows that the case was referred to the Sub-divisional Hospital at Jaipur to its Department of Diagnostic Radiology by the Medical Officer, Dasarathpur P. H. C. where the informant was sent for medical examination. There does not appear to be any doubt of P. W. 1 having been referred for examination to the Jaipur Sub-divisional Hospital and that X-ray revealed the fracture. It was the evidence of P. W. 11 that the injury was a grievous one and that unification of such fracture takes place twenty one days after the fracture. ( 7 ) THE further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that it was the admission of both P. Ws. 1 and 3 that 19-9-77 was not the date fixed in the S. 107 Cr. P. C. proceeding and therefore it must be taken that the entire prosecution case is a fabrication. The matter was discussed by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgement clearly pointing out that the recording of such fact in the evidence of both the witnesses appears to be a confusion or an omission to state or write a 'not' to deny the suggestion put to the witness. The statement "it is not a fact that 19-9-77 was the date fixed for hearing in the 224/76 (S. 107, Cr. P. C. proceeding)" appears to have been made as a reply to the suggestion given that 19-9-77 was not the date fixed and hence the reply could only be that it was not a fact that 19-9-77 was not the date fixed. P. C. proceeding)" appears to have been made as a reply to the suggestion given that 19-9-77 was not the date fixed and hence the reply could only be that it was not a fact that 19-9-77 was not the date fixed. I do not find any reason to disagree with the view of the appellate court in the matter. The last contention raised by Mr. Mohanty was that even though the petitioners were supposed to have assaulted with lathis, yet the lathis were not produced. Ext. 5 is the seizure list which has been proved by P. W. 7. The practice of not producing the weapons of offence when they were seized is to be depricated but however merely for such reason the version of the eye-witnesses regarding assault by the petitioners with lathis is not to be discarded. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision has no merit and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.