JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 482 Cr. P. C, filed by the petitioner challenging the observations and finding arrived at by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hindaun City in the order dated 21st December, 1988 passed in Criminal Case No. 258/79, State v. Radhey Shyam and others . 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused-petitioner was neither named in the first information report nor was made an accused in the case after investigation nor he was before the Court at any stage in any capacity whatsoever yet the Court recorded a finding that he is accused of the offence under Section 147 and 341 IPC along with other accused persons. Learned counsel submits that such a finding is not only against the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but is also contrary to the Principles of natural justice. A person who has not been arrayed as accused and has not been given an opportunity to defend himself, it is submitted, cannot be adjudicated to be a guilty person. It is further submitted that the petitioner has approached this court because according to him, he was hardly 11 or 12 years of age at the time of hearing and is a first class student throughout. His name has subsequently been taken by the complainant party to harm his reputation and to see that his career is spoiled. It is also submitted that learned Magistrate, without the petitioner being a party, made the observations against him that he had committed the offence. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor does not controvert the facts as argued. 4. I have perused the order as well as the record placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner i. e. the copy of the charge-sheet. 5. The F.I.R. in the case was lodged by Ram Charan Arya, on 7th September, 1979 wherein it was alleged by him that at 8.00 a.m. when he was returning from Hindaun near Badi Chakki, Kailash Sahai, Badri Prasad, Bhagwati, Madan, Om Prakash and Radhey Shyam way laid him and caught hold of him by neck. They were showing protest for his instituting a case against them. On his raising an alarm, they left him and went away. They were showing protest for his instituting a case against them. On his raising an alarm, they left him and went away. A case was registered for offence under sections 147 & 347 IPC and after investigation, six persons whose names have been mentioned in the F.I.R. were charge-sheeted. All those six persons were tried by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City. Prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case and accused one. The learned Magistrate while delivering the judgment did not confine his judgment to the persons made accused in the case but also discussed the case of Rajendra Prasad, the present petitioner, who was not at all before the Court and as mentioned above, he was neither named in the F.I.R. nor was shown as an accused in the charge-sheet. The learned Magistrate observed as under:- " bl izdkj ih0 MCyw0 5 jke pj.k o ih0 Mcyw0 6 dSyk'k ds l'kiFk dFkuksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g izekf.kr gS fd vfHk;qDr jktsUnz izlkn] dSyk'k rFkk cnzh izlkn] Hkxorh izlkn] enu yky] vkse izdk'k o jk/ks';ke us izkFkhZ jkepj.k dks ,d jk; gksdj ?ksj dj jksdk vkSj jkepj.k dks mldh bfPNr fn'kk esa tkus ls jksdkA vfHk;qDr jktsUnz] dSyk'k yky] cnzh izlkn] Hkxorh izlkn] enu yky] vkse izdk'k o jk/ks';ke ds fo:) /kkjk 147] 341] Hkk0n0la0 dk vijk/k lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr gSA ftUgsa /kkjk 147] 323 Hk0na0la0 dks nks"kh djkj fn;k tkrk gSA " 6. He, however, corrected his error while giving the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the other accused by not mentioning his name. 7. I am not going into the merits of the case because that is for the appellate Court to see so far as the other accused persons are concerned. Suffice it to say that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction expressed or implied to have adjudicated the case of Rajendra Prasad who was not arrayed as an accused in the case. His observations so concerning Rajendra Prasad are wholly uncalled for and unwarranted. He could not have, in pursuance of the aforesaid observations, recorded the finding as well that the accused is guilty for offence under sections 147 & 341 IPC. This order of the Magistrate is against the basic concept of audi alterm partem and, therefore, neither the observations nor the findings, as quoted above, can be maintained. 8. He could not have, in pursuance of the aforesaid observations, recorded the finding as well that the accused is guilty for offence under sections 147 & 341 IPC. This order of the Magistrate is against the basic concept of audi alterm partem and, therefore, neither the observations nor the findings, as quoted above, can be maintained. 8. The result is that the petition is allowed and name of Rajendra Prasad shall be deleted from the aforesaid paragraph neither observations nor findings shall be read. They stand expunged.Petition allowed. *******