JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal at the admission stage.This revision petition under section 397 Cr. P.C. arises out of the order dated 24.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Dausa reversing the order dated 23.3.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 2. The petitioners were tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dausa for offence under sections 147,447 and 379 IPC. At the conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate did not find the charge under section 379 IPC established against the petitioners. However, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty of having committed offence punishable under sections 147 and 447 IPC. While convicting the petitioners for above offences, the learned Magistrate extended them the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 3. The petitioners challenged their conviction before the court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide its judgment dated 24.S.200I set aside the judgment of the trial court on the ground that there was omission in framing of charge by the learned Magistrate and remanded the case back to the trial court with the direction to amend the charge and then to proceed in accordance with law. Hence the present revision petition. 4. I have gone through the judgments of the courts below. Section 215 Cr. P.C. deals with effect of errors in framing charge. It provides that no error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission and it has occasioned a failure of justice. 5. From a reading of Section 215 Cr. P.C. it is evident that unless the accused is misled by any error or omission or it has occasioned failure of justice, there cannot be said to be any material error. Keeping in view the provisions of section 215 Cr. P.C. I have perused the statements of witnesses recorded during the trial of the case, the statements of the accused petitioners u/s 313 Cr. P.C. and the judgment of the trial court. It is evident that the prosecution led evidence with regard to the incident which took place on 19.12.1995 and the evidence recorded was also in respect of the incident dated 19.12.1995. P.C. and the judgment of the trial court. It is evident that the prosecution led evidence with regard to the incident which took place on 19.12.1995 and the evidence recorded was also in respect of the incident dated 19.12.1995. The question put to the accused petitioners also related to the incident dated 19.12.1995. As such, undoubtedly, both the parties were very much conscious of the date, time and place of the incident. Therefore, in my considered view, no prejudice can be said to have caused to the accused petitioners by wrong mentioning of date, time and the place of incident in the charges. The order under revision shows that the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court even without arriving at a conclusion that defective charge has caused prejudice to the accused petitioner and that it has occasioned a failure of justice, Thus, the order impugned in this revision petition is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside. 6. In the result, this revision is allowed, the order dated 24.5.2001 passed by the Appellate Court is set aside and the Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits.Petition Allowed. *******