Order.- The petitioner (first accused) has been convicted by the District Magistrate of Tellicherry for an offence under section 332, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. On appeal to the Sessions Judge of Tellicherry the conviction and sentence were confirmed. Along with him his wife and son were also prosecuted and the charge against them was under section 332 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. On 9th March, 1962 P.W. 1 the Forest Guard was on patrol duty. He met the first accused with an unlicensed gun and arrested him. He was then being taken to the Forester. When they reached the house of the first accused he called but his wife and son and the wife armed with a bill-hook and the son armed with a tick rushed up. They threatened P.W. 1 and pushed him down and the first accused assaulted and beat him. P.W. 2 who was accompanying P.W. 1 witnessed the occurrence. The learned District Magistrate acquitted accused 2 and 3 but found the first accused guilty and convicted him of the offence under section 332, Indian Penal Code. In view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner rightly did not challenge the finding of fact. On the rulings in Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra1, the learned Counsel contended that the conviction of the petitioner is clearly unsustainable. What is stated is that when accused 2 and 3 were acquitted as the evidence was not acceptable the effect of the finding is that they did not take part in the offence and so they did not conjointly act with the petitioner in committing the offence under section 332, Indian Penal Code, and if that be so the petitioner also cannot be convicted. In the case cited, four persons were charged under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of the deceased in furtherance of the common intention and all of them were also charged separately for the substantive offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court on the evidence acquitted all the accused. In the case cited, four persons were charged under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code for causing the murder of the deceased in furtherance of the common intention and all of them were also charged separately for the substantive offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court on the evidence acquitted all the accused. The State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal for the offence under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code but no appeal was preferred against the order of acquittal under section 302, Indian Penal Code, The High Court confirmed the acquittal of accused 1, 3 and 4 but convicted the second accused of the offence under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. The conviction was set aside by the Supreme Court and their Lordships observed that the effect of acquittal of the three accused was that they did not conjointly act with the fourth accused in committing the murder and the fourth accused could not be convicted under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, for having committed the offence jointly with the acquitted persons. But here the facts are entirely different. The three accused were charged for an offence under section 332 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. No alternative charge under section 332, Indian Penal Code was framed. On the evidence the Courts below found that the first accused was the person who actually assaulted and caused hurt to P.W. 1 and therefore found him guilty of the offence under section 332, Indian Penal Code, and acquitted accused 2 and 3 as in his opinion the evidence was not sufficient to bring home the guilt to them. The question would be whether the omission to frame an alternative charge under section 332, Indian Penal Code, is an illegality that would cut at the root of the conviction or whether it is only a curable irregularity in which all that we are concerned is whether prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The question would be whether the omission to frame an alternative charge under section 332, Indian Penal Code, is an illegality that would cut at the root of the conviction or whether it is only a curable irregularity in which all that we are concerned is whether prejudice was caused to the petitioner. A similar question came up for consideration in the decision in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, where it was held that having regard to the nature of the charge framed the omission to frame a separate charge under section 302, Penal Code against W was only a durable irregularity which in the absence of prejudice could not affect the legality of conviction under section 302, Penal Code. The accused in this case knew what he was being tried for and what the allegations against him were and no prejudice has or could have been caused to him. The conviction is not, therefore, invalid because of the nature of the charge. The result is the conviction and sentence are confirmed and the Revision Petition is dismissed. M.C.M. ------- Petition dismissed.