Order.- This revision petition is by accused 5 and 6 in C.C. No. 322 of 1963 on the file of the Additional First-Class Magistrate, Sherthallai. They along with four others were convicted under sections 143, 147, 426 and 323 read with section 149, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40. Accused 1 to 4 have not come up in revision. The charge against the accused was that they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of dismantling a part of the eastern fence and another part of the western fence of Kollan Parappu Thekke puraidom in the supervision of P.W. 1, to gain easy access to the Bajana Madam in the property to the west. According to the prosecution all the six accused took part in dismantling the fence whereas accused 1 to 3 alone caused hurt to P.W. 1 by pushing him on the ground. All the accused pleaded not guilty. Accused 5 and 6 as also some of the others denied having been present at the spot. Accused 5 who is a man of 70 pleaded that he was bed-ridden and under treatment and accused 6 who was employed as a supervisor in the Electrical, Department, Ernakulam, contended that he was at Ernakulam at the relevant time. The first accused’s case was that there was a path-way leading from the road to the Bhajana Madam with gates on the eastern and western sides which were kept open and through which the public used to go to the Bhajana Madam. When P.W. 1 came to close the gate in the eastern fence accused 1 obstructed when P.W. 1 cut him with a chopper and a tussle ensued between him and accused 4 on the one side and P.W. 1 on the other in the course of which P.W. 1 fell down and sustained the injuries. D.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined in support of that version. On a consideration of the evidence the Magistrate has accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused. D.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined in support of that version. On a consideration of the evidence the Magistrate has accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused. The points urged before me in revision on behalf of the revision petitioners are (i) that the conviction is unsustainable since the accused were only acting in the bona fide exercise of their right to use the pathway which was being used by them for a long time past, (ii) that in any view the conviction of accused 5 and 5 under section 323 by calling in aid section 149 is not proper since the common object of the assembly was only to demolish the fence and not to cause hurt to P.W. 1 End in the circumstances of the case it cannot be held that the members of the assembly knew that hurt was likely to be committed in carrying out that object; and (iii) that the conviction of accused 5 is unsustainable as it is not likely that he, a sickly and aged man of 70, could have taken an active part in the incident, and at the worst he could have been only an innocent by-stander. The first objection is devoid of merits as it is proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 that access to the Bhajana Madam was through a gate on the western fence of P.W. 3’s puraidom in which the Madam is situated and this was an attempt on the part of the accused to get a more convenient passage. However there is some force in the other two objections. It cannot be said that causing hurt to P.W. 1 by accused 1 to 3 was intrinsically connected with or implicit in the common object of demolishing the fence. P.W. 1 came to the place only after his mother informed him of the demolition of the western fence and he has no case that he caused any physical obstruction so as to necessitate his being pushed down. According to him he only asked the accused to desist from destroying the fence after the destruction began. It is not an obstruction which had to be removed by use of force. Admittedly P.W. 1 gave a blow to accused 1 and the pushing down might have been connected with the incident of which accused 5 and 6 could not be fixed with constructive liablity. It is not an obstruction which had to be removed by use of force. Admittedly P.W. 1 gave a blow to accused 1 and the pushing down might have been connected with the incident of which accused 5 and 6 could not be fixed with constructive liablity. It is also pertinent to note that P.W. 1 was taken away from the scene by his mother and sister before the accused got into the puraidom and destroyed the western fence. In this connection it has to be said that the charge framed by the Court is loose and confusing. There is only one consolidated charge against all the accused and that is silent about the constructive liability sought to be imposed on accused 4 to 6 for the hurt caused by accused 1 to 3. It is not even stated that hurt was an offence which the members of the unlawful assembly other than those who caused it knew to be likely to be committed. In quoting with approval the following observations of the Calcutta High Court in Behari Mahtom v. Queen Empress1 “An accused person is entitled to know with certainty and accuracy the exact value of the charge brought against him. Unless he has this knowledge he must be seriously prejudiced in his defence. This is true in all cases, but it is more especially true in cases where it is sought to implicate an accused person for acts not committed by himself, but by others with whom he was in company” it was held by Koshi, C.J., in Vasu Pillai v. State2, that “A person must be told as to what offence he is being directly charged with what others if any, he is being sought to be vicariously made liable.” In a later decision of this Court Balakrishnan v. State3, while dealing with a charge for constructive liability this Court has emphasized the view that there can be no doubt that the proper procedure to be followed is to put the accused person on notice of the precise ground on which liability is cast upon him. A mere mention of the relevant sections in the charge will not be sufficient notice to the accused that he is sought be made constructively liable. A mere mention of the relevant sections in the charge will not be sufficient notice to the accused that he is sought be made constructively liable. I should think in cases where accused are sought to be made liable under section 149, Indian Penal Code the model charge found at page 477 of Volume 1 of Raju’s Commentary on the Penal Code, could well be adopted: “That on or about....................................at............................the offence of....................................(here state the facts constituting the offence) under section......, Indian Penal Code, was committed by....................(who was a member)/were members of an unlawful assembly the common object of which was.................... (here state the common object of the unlawful assembly) in prosecution of the common object of that Unlawful assembly or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that common object and that you........................................................were at the time of the committing of that offence a member of the same assembly and thereby you did commit an offence punishable under section......, Indian Penal Code, read with section 149, Indian Penal Code ........................................” In this case even at the time of questioning of accused 5 and 6 under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, not even a hint about the vicarious liability for having caused hurt to P.W. 1 is made. The defect in the charge taken along with the defective questioning may be presumed to have prejudiced the accused. In any view of the case the conviction of accused 5 and 6 under section 323 read with section 149 has to go. Taking the case of accused 5 the only specific act attributed to him is that along with accused 2 and 4 he pulled down with the hand the fence which was already cut open with choppers by accused 1, 3 and 6. He is a sickly old man of 70 who was undergoing treatment. In the first place there was no necessity for such nominal assistance from the old man to desman a fence cut down with choppers by accused 1, 3 and 6. There is also the inherent improbability of the old and infirm father getting down his son in Government Service from Ernakulam to join him to commit an offence whereby nothing personal is gained but much had to be lost. There is also the inherent improbability of the old and infirm father getting down his son in Government Service from Ernakulam to join him to commit an offence whereby nothing personal is gained but much had to be lost. The incident took place early in the morning and it is more probable that the old man who is living only 150 feet from the place was attracted to the scene like P.W. 1 and his mother after the trouble started. As such his presence need not be culpable. There is serious doubt about the complicity of the old man the benefit of which should go to him. In the result the conviction of accused 5 is set aside. The fine if realised from him will be refunded. The conviction of accused 6 under section 323 read with section 149 is also set aside. The fine of Rs. 15 imposed on that count will be refunded to him it if is already paid. In other respects the revision petition is dismissed. M.C.M. ----- Conviction of accused 5 and 6 set aside; Petition otherwise dismissed.