Judgment L.P.N.Shahdeo, J. 1. This revision is directed against the appellate courts judgment dated 11-8-87 passed by the Judical Commissioner, Ranchi whereby he has confirmed the judgment of the trial court passed by Sri Ashok Kumar Pathak, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi who had convicted the petitioners under Sections 143 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo R. I. for two months and four months respectively. 2. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 31-8-83 at about 9.30 when PW 8 was said to be washing his cloths. It is alleged that at that time alteraction took place and the petitioners are said to have entered into the room and taken away the money. 3. It appears that during trial eight witnesses were examined. Out of them PWs 4, 6 and 7 were the eye witnesses and the rest were formal witnesses. Bseides them, three D. Ws. were also examined on behalf of the accused petitioners. Among the D. Ws. petitioner No. 1 was examined as D. W. 1. 4. It appears that by an order dated 12-7-90 passed by this court the offence under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code has been compromised and, therefore, this case is proceeding only under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 5. Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the parties have already compromised the case and when the main offence has been compromised and the accused have been acquitted, the offence under Section 143 of the Penal Code automatically disappears and, as such, the petitioners are not liable for any punishment even under Section 143 of the Penal Code. 6. It is the admitted position in this case even according to the admission of PWs 4 and 8 that petitioners No. 1 was one of the members of the Managing Committee and according to the evidence of PW 4 he was, in fact, running the institution. Therefore, entry by petitioner No. 1 into that institution with other persons or followers cannot be said to be for the purpose of committing any offence. If this was their intention or if this was the position, forming of unlawful assembly or committing any offence goes away and in this view of the matter the offence under Section 143 of the Penal Code cannot sustain. 7. If this was their intention or if this was the position, forming of unlawful assembly or committing any offence goes away and in this view of the matter the offence under Section 143 of the Penal Code cannot sustain. 7. The word unlawful assembly has been defined under Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code. It says that if five persons or more assemble with common object of committing any mischief or criminal tres pass or to show criminal force etc., those persons can be said to have committed an offence of forming unlawful assembly. 8. In this case the main offence was that of comitting trespass which was under Section 448 of the Penal Code which stands compounded and the accused persons have been acquitted. Therefore, the main offence for which the petitioners are sought to be prosecuted, stands eliminated in view of the compromise between the parties. It, therefore, follows that the members was had gone there, had no any common intention of committing any offence, as indicated above. The consequence will be that the petitioners cannot be straight away held guilty for the offence under Section 143 of the Penal Code. 9. There is yet another important circumstance that when the main offence stands compromised or when the main offence i.e. committing criminal trespass disappears as a result of compromise, then, it cannot be said that any person had formed any unlawful assembly for the purpose of committing that offence which no longer exists at present in view of the effect of compromise. In this view of the matter also, the petitioners are entitled to an acquittal even for the offence under Section 143 of the Penal Code. 10. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this application is allowed and the conviction of the petitioners under Section 143 of the Penal Code is set aside.