JUDGMENT : This is a classic case by which a casualty occurred because all connected criminal appeals were not posted together by the registry. 2. The Circle Inspector of Police, Thripunithura filed a charge sheet against eight accused alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 120B r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 faced trial in Sessions Case No.335 of 2000. The trial court convicted and sentenced accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 and acquitted the 8th accused. Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 filed Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2004. Subsequently, accused Nos.3 and 5 faced trial in Sessions Case No.485 of 2004. When the trial, in that case, was about to conclude and when the case was posted for questioning the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the 3rd accused absconded. Therefore, the trial court again split the case of 3rd accused. Accused 5 was convicted and sentenced in S.C.No.485 of 2004. Subsequently, the 3rd accused surrendered before the trial court, and that case is separately numbered as S.C.No.145 of 2008. In that case, the 3rd accused was also convicted by the trial court. The 3rd accused filed Crl.Appeal No.2025 of 2008 and the 5th accused filed Crl.Appeal No.2638 of 2009 before this Court. As per the judgment dated 7.12.2010, this court allowed Crl.Appeal No.2638 of 2009 and acquitted the 5th accused who is Prasanth, S/o.Velayudhan. The appeal filed by accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 is Crl.Appeal No.611 of 2004 and the appeal filed by the 3rd accused is Crl.Appeal No.2025 of 2008. These two appeals were pending before this Court when Crl.Appeal No.2638 of 2009 was heard and disposed of by this court. (hereinafter, the accused are mentioned according to their rank in the original charge sheet). 4. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused was in inimical terms with CW2 Manual as he was against the criminal activities of the 1st accused. Out of the said enmity, accused Nos.1 to 8 conspired together and decided to murder charge witness No.2, who is examined as PW1 before the court. 4. The prosecution case is that the 1st accused was in inimical terms with CW2 Manual as he was against the criminal activities of the 1st accused. Out of the said enmity, accused Nos.1 to 8 conspired together and decided to murder charge witness No.2, who is examined as PW1 before the court. On 14.3.1999 at 7.15 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 7 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, knowing that they are the members of such assembly armed themselves with deadly weapons such as 'kanakan vakkathy', knife, iron rod, and iron pipe, etc. The prosecution's further case is that, when CW2, who was examined as PW1 came on a scooter, the accused reached the place of occurrence at Paradise Road, Thammanam. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 4 wrongfully restrained him and the 4th accused punched on the chest of PW1. The 3rd accused hit him on his abdomen and accused Nos.2 to 7 attacked PW1 on several parts of his body by using their hands and legs. In the meantime, the 2nd accused stabbed on the buttock of PW1 and inflicted seven injuries. The 3rd accused had beaten him with an iron rod on his back and left leg. The 4th accused gave a blow on the back of PW1 with an iron pipe. After that, the accused persons dragged PW1 to the middle portion of the Paradise road and the 1st accused by using a kanakkan vakkathy cut on the tendon of his both legs. They also inflicted cut wounds on the foot of PW1. Thereafter, PW1 was dragged to the western side of the road and accused Nos.6 and 7 had beaten him with iron rod and iron pipe. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 also had beaten on several parts of the body of PW1. Accused persons have done the above acts with the intention to murder PW1. Hence, it is alleged that accused had committed the above mentioned offences. 5. In Sessions case No.335 of 2000, in which accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 to 8 faced trial, 17 witnesses were examined. Exhibits P1 to P23 are the exhibits marked on the side of the prosecution. D1 to D13 are the defence exhibits. MO1 to MO15 are the material objects. 5. In Sessions case No.335 of 2000, in which accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 to 8 faced trial, 17 witnesses were examined. Exhibits P1 to P23 are the exhibits marked on the side of the prosecution. D1 to D13 are the defence exhibits. MO1 to MO15 are the material objects. After going through the evidence and documents, the trial court found that, accused who faced trial, in that case, committed the offence under Sections 143, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence was also imposed separately. The 8th accused was found not guilty. Thereafter, the other two accused, namely the 3rd and 5th accused faced trial, and they were also convicted. 6. Heard the Counsel for the appellants in both these appeals and the learned public prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the original 5th accused who filed Crl.Appeal No.2638 of 2009 was allowed by this court after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence. This court found that, the charge framed against the accused in S.C.No.485 of 2004 is not proper and in total violation of the provisions in Criminal Procedure Code. For that single reason, this court observed that the appellant in that case is entitled an order of acquittal. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that, the charge framed against the appellants in these cases is also in a similar fashion. The learned Senior Counsel appeared for the appellants submitted that they are also entitled to the benefit of that judgment. 8. The learned public prosecutor submitted that, actually, this Court in Crl.Appeal No.2638 of 2009 proceeded as if the appellant in that case is the 2nd accused. The public prosecutor submitted that, the same was brought to the notice of the learned Judge and the same is clear from paragraphs 18 and 19 of the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.2638 of 2009. 9. The learned public prosecutor submitted that, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in Crl.Appeal No.2638 of 2009 is not correct on facts. The public prosecutor submitted that, it is a clear case in which the accused in these cases attacked PW1 indiscriminately, and PW1 sustained very serious injuries. It is a clear case in which the prosecution proved the accused's guilt under Section 307 IPC. The public prosecutor submitted that, it is a clear case in which the accused in these cases attacked PW1 indiscriminately, and PW1 sustained very serious injuries. It is a clear case in which the prosecution proved the accused's guilt under Section 307 IPC. Therefore, the public prosecutor submitted that this court may kindly confirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in these cases. 10. The points to be considered in these appeals:-(a) whether the impugned judgments in these appeals are sustainable in the light of the judgment dated 7.12.2010 in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009. (b) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are sustainable? 11. It is a fact to be noted that Crl. Appeal No.611 of 2004 and Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008 was pending when Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 was disposed of by this court on 7.12.2010. It is the duty of the registry to check the pendency of any connected appeals and, thereafter, post all connected criminal appeals together before the court for the hearing. Nowadays, it is very easy to find out whether there is any connected criminal appeal pending when a criminal appeal is posted for hearing. The learned Single Judge disposed of Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 without knowing the fact that the other criminal appeals viz. Crl. Appeal No.611 of 2004 and Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008 are pending before this Court. If criminal appeals are not posted together, there is even a chance for conflicting decisions from different benches of this court. Therefore, I direct the registry to see that, in future, when a criminal appeal is posted in which the trial court convicted more than one accused, the registry should verify about the pendency of any connected appeals and see that all the criminal appeals are posted together before the Bench. Similarly, if some of the accused are acquitted, there is a chance for appeal against acquittal. The registry should take necessary steps to find out all connected criminal appeals and post all those appeals together for hearing in future. 12. This Court in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 found that, the charge framed against the accused in that case was not proper. The registry should take necessary steps to find out all connected criminal appeals and post all those appeals together for hearing in future. 12. This Court in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 found that, the charge framed against the accused in that case was not proper. This court considered Sections 211 and 212 of Cr.P.C. After considering all the provisions in Cr.P.C in connection with the framing of charge, this court concluded that the charge framed against the accused in that case is not proper and therefore held that the accused is entitled the benefit of doubt. When these appeals came up for consideration, I directed the trial court to forward the court charge framed in S.C.No.485 of 2004 as per order dated 25.6.2020, which is extracted hereunder: "When these criminal appeals came up for consideration, it is brought to the notice of this court that one of the accused in Crime No.54/1999 of Panangad Police Station was tried by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-1), Ernakulam in S.C.No.485/2004. He was convicted by the trial court as per the judgment dated 7.12.2010. In Crl. A. No.2638 of 2009, this court set aside the conviction and sentence, mainly because, the court charge is not framed properly. For a proper decision of these appeals, the court charge in S.C.No.485 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-1), Ernakulam is necessary. Therefore, registry will get a copy of the court charge in S.C.485/2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-1), Ernakulam, if the records are available. The counsel for the appellants submitted that he will get ready to argue the appeal on 27.7.2020. Post on 27.7.2020 for disposal.” Accordingly, the trial court forwarded the court charge in S.C.No.485 of 2004. The same is extracted hereunder: “Court Charge SC 485/04 Other Language Sd/- 14.8.07 Addl. District & Sessions Judge, (AD-HOC)I, Ernakulam [Court Seal] ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM” 13. After going through the above charge, this court found that, the charge is not framed correctly and hence Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 was allowed. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 7.12.2010 is extracted hereunder: “8. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the records, I find that appellant was referred to as 2nd accused in the charge framed by the court. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 was allowed. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 7.12.2010 is extracted hereunder: “8. On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the records, I find that appellant was referred to as 2nd accused in the charge framed by the court. Two persons alone were referred to as accused in the case and only they were named in the charge. Referring to appellant as 2nd accused, trial court framed the charge stating that he wrongfully restrained PW1, and also stabbed him seven times, with the knife and inflicted injuries on him. Thus, the main over act alleged against appellant, as per the charge framed by the court is stabbing with knife on PW1 seven times. 9. However, neither PW1 nor any of the witnesses examined in this case has a case that appellant stabbed PW1 in the manner, as stated in the charge. They have no case that the appellant used any knife at all or that he stabbed PW1 with a knife. It is also relevant to note that as per the charge, there is no allegation that appellant who is shown as 2nd accused in the charge had used any iron pipe or iron rod to commit any overt act against PW1. But, the trial court convicted appellant for beating PW1 by using iron pipe. On this ground itself, the conviction cannot be sustained. 10. Now, the question is whether appellant was a member of the unlawful assembly. The basic requirement to convict a person for offences under Section 143, 147, 148 of IPC is proof of existence of an unlawful assembly. What an unlawful assembly is stated in Section 141 of IPC. A reading of the charge shows that there is absolutely no whisper in the charge regarding any of the relevant particulars of offences under Section 143, 144, 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. No allegation is made in the charge, revealing the requirements under Section 141 IPC. It is not stated that appellant or other accused had formed into an unlawful assembly or acted in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. It is also not stated whether or not, there was any common object for any assembly or whether accused acted in prosecution of any common object of unlawful assembly. 12. It is not stated that appellant or other accused had formed into an unlawful assembly or acted in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. It is also not stated whether or not, there was any common object for any assembly or whether accused acted in prosecution of any common object of unlawful assembly. 12. It is not stated in the charge that accused acted in prosecution of any specific common object whether it be to commit murder or not. What is stated in the court charge is that the accused acted in “common interest” and what is the common interest is also not stated. To convict a person on the ground that he is a member of the unlawful assembly and that he committed the various overt acts as member of the unlawful assembly, there must be allegations in the charge constituting ingredients of the offences. 13. While framing charge, the court shall necessarily comply with the mandate in Chapter XVII of the code. The charge shall be written in the language of the court, as per Section 211(6) of the Code. The language of the court being English, the charge shall be written in English as referred under Section 211(6) of the Code. But, the charge framed in this case is in Malayalam and it does not conform to any of the mandatory requirements of the relevant provisions relating to framing of charge in Chapter XVII of the Code. 14. It is not even mentioned in the charge framed by court that there was an unlawful assembly or that any of the accused acted as a member of the unlawful assembly. Sections 143,147 and 148 of IPC do not give the offence any specific name. Hence, so much of the definition of the offence must be stated in the charge to give the accused notice of the matter with he is charged, as per Section 211(3) of the Code. 15. Section 212 of the Code lay down that charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and the person, if any, against whom, or the think in respect of which it was committed as are reasonably sufficient to give accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. 15. Section 212 of the Code lay down that charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and the person, if any, against whom, or the think in respect of which it was committed as are reasonably sufficient to give accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. If there is any mistake in mentioning the particulars of that person against whom the overt acts were committed, the manner in which it was committed or the nature of the overt act committed, accused can validly take up a contention that he was misled in his defence and there is no failure of justice. No conviction can be entered against accused on the basis of such erroneous charge. 16. The omission to state ingredients of the offence in the charge is not a defect which can be cured by any of the provision of the Code. A reading of Section 211(3) of the Code shows that the court shall stated so much of the definition of the offence in the charge of the offence does not have any specific name. The omission to state the ingredients of the offence under Section 211(3) of the Code in the charge is fatal, unless the offence has a specific name and such name is stated in the charge. 17. The effect of errors referred to in charge under Section 215 of the Code is no answer to comply with Section 211(3) of the Code. Section 215 of the Code only lays down 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. 18. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against appellant under Section 143, 144, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that appellant is actually 5th accused in this case, and there was a mistake in the charge framed by the court, but it is clear from the charge that 5th accused used an iron pipe and beat PW1 with iron pipe. 19. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that appellant is actually 5th accused in this case, and there was a mistake in the charge framed by the court, but it is clear from the charge that 5th accused used an iron pipe and beat PW1 with iron pipe. 19. It is true that such a statement is made in reference to 5th accused. But, there is nothing in the charge to show that appellant is 5th accused. On the other hand, appellant is referred to as 2nd accused and not 5th accused. The overt acts committed by appellant who is shown as 2nd accused are also different. In short, charge is framed in such a way that a conviction of appellant has become impossible. 20. It is essential that appellant must know the overt act alleged against him to defend himself effectively. This is based on the principle of a fair trial. No person shall be denied opportunity of fair trial. This is a case where, there is no specific allegation that appellant was a member of the unlawful assembly or that an unlawful assembly was formed at all, in this case. Apart from this, the overt acts alleged against appellant in the charge is totally different from the overt act for which he was convicted. 21. Having framed a charge against appellant for stabbing PW1 with a knife, and in the absence of a specific charge that he beat PW1 with iron pipe, it will not be proper or legal to convict a person for beating PW1 with iron pipe. The injury caused by knife and iron rod and the effect of the injury on the injured etc. are all different. 22. The appellant cannot be convicted for the alleged overt act of beating PW1 with iron pipe, in the absence of any specific allegation in the charge framed by the court to that effect. It is also not legal to convict appellant for any offence allegedly committed by him as a member of unlawful assembly, in the absence of any allegation in the charge that any unlawful assembly was formed at all involving appellant. Therefore, conviction and sentence passed against appellant for various offences under Section 143, 144, 147, 148 IPC and offences under Section 324, 326, 307, IPC each with the aid of 149 IPC are unsustainable.” 14. Therefore, conviction and sentence passed against appellant for various offences under Section 143, 144, 147, 148 IPC and offences under Section 324, 326, 307, IPC each with the aid of 149 IPC are unsustainable.” 14. A reading of the above judgment, it clear that this court proceeded on the basis that the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008 is arrayed as 1st accused, and the appellant in the Crl.A.No2638/2009 is arrayed as the second accused in the court charge. The appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 is actually the original 5th accused in the final report. But the fact remains that the learned single Judge acquitted the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2638/2009. In the light of the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009, it will be an injustice if the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008 is also not given the benefit of that judgment because the court charge for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008 and the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 is the same. The court charge extracted in paragraph 12 of this judgment is the court charge framed for these appellants. I am not going into the merit of the case in Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008. In the light of the finding of this court in that judgment dated 7.12.2010 in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009, I think, the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008 is also entitled the benefit of the same judgment. The public prosecutor conceded that, the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 is not challenged and the same became final. Since the entire facts are narrated in detail by this court in the judgment dated 7.12.2010 in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009, I am not repeating the same in detail. 15. When a criminal appeal filed by one of the accused is allowed by a single judge, even if there is difference of opinion about the judgment, another single judge cannot take a different stand in an appeal filed by another accused, if the allegation against both the accused are one and the same. Judicial discipline compels me to allow Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008 also. Of course, I can refer this criminal appeal to the Division Bench disagreeing with the findings of the learned single Judge in Crl. Judicial discipline compels me to allow Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008 also. Of course, I can refer this criminal appeal to the Division Bench disagreeing with the findings of the learned single Judge in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 because if a wrong charge is framed by a court, it is not always a ground for acquittal in appeal. Section 215 and Section 465 Crl.P.C will give a clear answer to this question. Moreover, at best, it can be rectified by remanding the case to the trial court. But, I am not referring this case to the Division Bench because the incident in this case happened about 21 years back, and this criminal appeal is pending before this court for more than 10 years. So I am giving the benefit of the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009 to the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008. 16. Then come to Crl. Appeal No.611 of 2004. That is the appeal filed by the original accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 6 and 7. Now the Senior learned counsel appeared for the appellants submitted that the 4th accused is no more. The death certificate of the 4th accused is produced in Crl. M.A. No.1 of 2020. Crl. M.A. No.1 of 2020 is allowed and the death certificate of the 4th accused is recorded. Therefore, the case against the 3rd appellant is abated. Now what remains is the appeal filed by accused Nos.1, 2, 6 and 7. The learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the appellants submitted that, the appellants are also entitled the benefits of the principle laid down by this Court in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009. The learned Senior Counsel brings to my notice the charge framed in this case. It may be better to extract the charge framed by the lower court in S.C.No.335 of 2000. “S.C. No.335 of 2000 (C.P.18/2000 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam) (Crime No.54/99 of Panangad Police Station) CHARGE I, N.K. Vijayan II Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam hereby charge you: Accused: 1. Fizal Joseph @ Fizal, S/o Joseph, residing at near Asis Junction, Aluva, Kolenchery, Remesan’s House (Mudavathil veedu,Ponnurunni kara, Felix Road, Poonithura Village. 2. Suresh Kumar @ Suresh, S/o. Subayan, Kavalom Pallippadom veedu, Vyttila kara, Paradise road, Poonithura Village. 3. Ani, S/o. Subayan, Kavalom Pallipadom veedu, .do. .do. 4. Suni, S/o. Subayan, .do. .do. 5. Fizal Joseph @ Fizal, S/o Joseph, residing at near Asis Junction, Aluva, Kolenchery, Remesan’s House (Mudavathil veedu,Ponnurunni kara, Felix Road, Poonithura Village. 2. Suresh Kumar @ Suresh, S/o. Subayan, Kavalom Pallippadom veedu, Vyttila kara, Paradise road, Poonithura Village. 3. Ani, S/o. Subayan, Kavalom Pallipadom veedu, .do. .do. 4. Suni, S/o. Subayan, .do. .do. 5. Prasanth, S/o. Velayudhan, Koottungal veedu, Mulavukadu Bhagom, near Ponnarimangalam Jetty, Mulavukadu Village. 6. Prasad, S/o. Sivaraman, Azhikkathara veedu, Panangadu desom, East of N.M.Stores, near old toddy shop, Kumbalam Village. 7. Biju @ Chala Biju, S/o. George, Chaniyil veedu, Maradu Desom, Maradu Village. 8. M.V. Joseph, S/o. Varkey, residing at Asis Junction, Aluva, Kolenchery Ramesan's House, (Ponnurunny Desom, Mudavathil veedu, Felix road, Poonithura Village). First, that you, 7 in number, along with the absconding accused Prasanth S/o. Velayudhan, about 7.15 p.m. on 14.3.99, after arming yourselves with dangerous weapons formed yourselves into an unlawful assembly on the public road in front of House No.XXXI/338 at Vyttila kara, Poonithura Village with the common object to commit murder of C.W.2, Manuval @ Manikutty, and thereby committed the offence u/s 143 r/w Section 149 I.P.C. Secondly, that you, at the same time and place referred to above and as members of the unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons, used force or violence in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 148 r/w. Section 149 IPC. Thirdly, that you, about the same time and the place referred to above and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, caused simple hurt to C.W.2 by fisting and kicking and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w. Section 149 I.P.C. Fourthly, that you, about the same time and place referred to above, and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, caused simple hurt to C.W.2 with dangerous weapons and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 324 r/w. Section 149 I.P.C. Fifthly, that you, about the some time and place referred to above and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, caused grievous hurt to C.W.2 by cutting him with swords and beating with iron rods (dangerous weapons) and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 326 r/w. Section 149 I.P.C. Sixthly, that you, about the same time and place referred to above, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly and with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if you by that act caused death you would be guilty of murder caused grievous hurt to C.W.2 by cutting with swords and beating with iron rods and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 307 r/w. 149 I.P.C. These offences are within the cognizance of this court and I hereby direct that you be tried by this court on the said charges. Dated this the 28th day of June, 2002. Sd/- N.K. Vijayan, III Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge” 17. Section 211 Cr.P.C. says about the contents of charge. Section 211 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder: “211. Contents of charge.(1)Every charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged. (2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only. (3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. (4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge. (5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case. (6) The charge shall be written in the language of the court. (7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the court may add it at any time before sentence is passed." 18. The basic facts necessary while framing a charge is absent in the court charge. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that Section 212 of Cr.P.C. says about the particulars as to the time, place and the person to be mentioned in the court charge. Section 212 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder: 212. Particulars as to time, place and person. (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, described the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 219. Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.” 19. Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.” 19. As per Section 212(1) Cr.P.C. the charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. According to the learned Senior Counsel, those details are not there in the charge framed by the trial court in this case. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that, the same is fatal because the accused is prejudiced by such omission. 20. I perused court charge framed in S.C.No.335 of 2000 along with Section 211 and 212 Cr.P.C. It is true that, the particulars mentioned in Section 212 Cr.P.C. are lacking in the court charge. I have to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the same prejudiced the accused to defend their case. It is true that, Section 215 Cr.P.C. says 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. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the framing of charge in this case is patently illegal and it prejudiced the accused. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that, one of the accused in the same case was acquitted by the court in Crl.Appeal No.2638 of 2009 for the simple reason that the charge framed against the accused is not correct. It is true that, simply because the court's charge is not in proper form and it prejudiced the accused, the appellants cannot be acquitted for that simple reason. In such a situation, the usual remedy is to remand the case to the trial court and direct the trial court to frame charge in accordance to Cr.P.C. and proceed in accordance to law. But, this is a case charge sheeted in 1999. The trial court convicted the accused on 27.3.2004. Now 21 years have elapsed after the alleged incident in this case. Sixteen years elapsed after filing this appeal. But, this is a case charge sheeted in 1999. The trial court convicted the accused on 27.3.2004. Now 21 years have elapsed after the alleged incident in this case. Sixteen years elapsed after filing this appeal. As I stated earlier, one of the accused acquitted by this court for the simple reason that, there is no proper charge framed by the trial court. As I said in the first sentence of this judgment, these casualties occurred because of the reason that, all connected appeals are not posted together by the registry. While considering Crl.Appeal No.2638 of 2009, this court proceeded with the belief that the appellant in that appeal is the 2nd accused in the original charge. Actually, that appellant is the fifth accused in the original charge and the second appellant in this appeal is the original second accused. If all these appeals were posted together, these confusions could be avoided. Now the fifth accused is acquitted, treating him as the 2nd accused. Now, if Crl. Appeal No.611 of 2004 is allowed and remanded; it will create utter confusion because the original 2nd accused is the 2nd appellant in this appeal. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think, the appellants in these cases are also entitled the benefit of the judgment dated 7.12.2010 in Crl. Appeal No.2638 of 2009. Therefore, these Criminal Appeals are allowed in the following manner: (1) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.2025 of 2008 is set aside. The appellant is set at liberty. Bail bond, if any, executed by him is cancelled; (2) Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2004 is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants 1, 2, 4 and 5 are set aside. They are set at liberty. Bail bond, if any, executed by them are cancelled; (3) Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2020 in Crl. Appeal No.611 of 2004 is allowed. The death of the 3rd appellant is recorded. The appeal filed by the 3rd appellant is abated.; (4) Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think, there is no justification in retaining the fine imposed on the 3rd appellant alone. Therefore, the fine imposed on the 3rd appellant is also set aside. Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to the Registrar (Judicial) for compliance of the directions mentioned in paragraph 11 of this judgment.