Order: This Criminal Revision Case arises out of a Reference made under section 438, of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bijapur. The three respondents were the accused persons in C.C. No. 556 of 1958 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indi-Sindgi. The case of the prosecution was to the effect that at about 10-30 a.m., on 23rd April, 1958, when P.W. 1 had been to his land, all the three accused persons and the third accused’s (Juvenile) son Shankar pelted stones at the complainant, that accused 2 and 3 caused hurt to the complainant and that the first accused caused a bleeding injury with an axe blow on the head of the complinant. The accused were charged for offences punishable under sections 336, 323, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, the learned Magistrate found A-1 guilty of an offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month; the learned Magistrate found the accused 2 and 3 guilty of an offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of its. 25 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. Against these convictions and sentences, the accused persons filed a revision application under section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the Sessions Judge of Bijapur, in which they prayed that a Reference be made by the Sessions Judge to the High Court recommending that the convictions be quashed. The learned Sessions Judge has, thereupon, made the present Reference recommending for the quashing of the convictions of the present respondents. Sri A.V. Albal has appeared for the respondents; Sri A.B. Mariyappa the learned High Court Government Pleader who has appeared for the State, has not supported the Reference. After a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates, I am satisfied that this Reference should be rejected. Sri A.V. Albal has appeared for the respondents; Sri A.B. Mariyappa the learned High Court Government Pleader who has appeared for the State, has not supported the Reference. After a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates, I am satisfied that this Reference should be rejected. In para 3 of his order, the learned Sessions Judge begins with the observation that the charge as framed against the accused was defective, because of the non-mention therein of the specific offence with which each of the accused had been charged and that this defect must be said to have caused prejudice to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge is clearly not right in the view which he has taken in regard to this aspect of the case. The charge against the accused was simple one. ‘It had been clearly stated in the charge framed against them, that accused 1 was armed with an axe and accused 2 was armed with a stick and that they beat the complinant with axe and stick and caused him injuries; it is also further stated in the charge that all the three accused and the juvenile Shankarappa threw stones at the complinant and caused him hurt. When this charge was read out and explained to the accused persons, they clearly stated that they understood the charge and they pleaded not guilty. They did not state that from the charge framed against them, they were unable to understand which specific offence was alleged against each of them. The evidence of P.W. 1 the complainant which was accepted by the trial Magistrate discloses that a stone thrown by A-3 struck P.W. 1 on the leg, that a stick hurled by A-2 struck P.W. 1 on the chest and that the axe blow delivered by A-1 caused bleeding injury on the head of P.W. 1. The evidence of P.W. 1 showed quite clearly the prosecution case as regards the criminal acts committed by each of the accused persons. Under these circumstances, there is no ground to assume that any prejudice might have been caused to the accused persons. As to whether any prejudice has been caused is, essentially, a question of fact; it should be specifically alleged and shown to the satisfaction of the Court that prejudice has actually resulted from some defect or irrigularity in the procedure. Under these circumstances, there is no ground to assume that any prejudice might have been caused to the accused persons. As to whether any prejudice has been caused is, essentially, a question of fact; it should be specifically alleged and shown to the satisfaction of the Court that prejudice has actually resulted from some defect or irrigularity in the procedure. It is noticed that though the accused had taken up as many as 56 grounds in their revision application before the learned Sessions Judge, they had not at all alleged either that there was any defect in the charge or that any prejudice had resulted therefrom. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in thinking that the charge was defective and assuming that prejudice must have resulted therefrom. I am satisfied that there is no defect in the charge and that no prejudice has been caused to the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to discuss and reassess the evidence, as if he was sitting as a Court of appeal. In the very first para of his order, he has referred to the respondents as appellants and he states that they have challenged the correctness of the Magistrate’s finding, in appeal. The impression seems to have been created on his mind that he was dealing with an appeal. The powers given to the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code are purely discretionary and such powers must be exercised sparingly. Merely on the ground that on the evidence, a view different from that taken by the trial Court might be possible, a reference ought not to be made to the High Court. Ordinarily, when no serious irregularity has been committed by the trial Court and no question of principle is involved, the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, should be reluctant to make a Reference to the High Court. The power of the High Court to interfere under section 439, ought not to be lightly invoked by the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate acting under section 438. The power of the High Court to interfere under section 439, ought not to be lightly invoked by the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate acting under section 438. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have entertained considerable doubt in regard to the truth of the prosecution case, on the ground that the complainant stated that he had been lying at the place where he fell down, from about 10-30 a.m. (when the incident took place) till about 8 p.m. when the panchayatdars and the Police Patil came there. The learned Sessions Judge has made the observation that it must have been a very hot day being in the month of April and his impression appears to be that as that place was not far away from the village it was unlikely that the complainant would have been lying at that place for so long. This approach by the learned Sessions Judge, is not correct. It is undisputed that P.W. 1 had received a bleeding incised injury on his head. Towards the end of paragraph 3 of his order, the learned Sessions Judge has recognised that this was a severe injury. P.W. 1 appears to have been an elderly person of more than 50 years of age and there is nothing surprising, if after receiving the severe bleeding injury on the head, he was lying at the place where he had fallen down until others came and removed him from that place. No questions had been directed during cross-examination of either P.W. 1 or the Doctor who had attended to the injuries, to show that in spite of his injury P.W. 1 could have got up and walked away to his village. The learned trial Magistrate who had the advantage of watching the witnesses while they were in the witness-box, accepted the evidence of P.W. 1. While considering the probabilities in the case, the learned Magistrate took into consideration also the fact "that there had been previous litigation between P.W. 1 and the accused in respect of the land and that P.W. 1 had been resisting possession of this land being taken from him by the accused. Having regard to all the circumstances in the case, it cannot be said that the conclusion reached by the trial Magistrate was not possible on the evidence before him. Having regard to all the circumstances in the case, it cannot be said that the conclusion reached by the trial Magistrate was not possible on the evidence before him. This Reference which has been made by the learned Sessions Judge after assessing the evidence afresh, as if he had been sitting as a Court of appeal is not justified and I do not find any good ground to accept this Reference. There are no good grounds to interfere in Revision with the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate and this Reference by the learned Sessions Judge, is rejected. S.V.S. ------ Reference rejected.