Mohendra Bhumij And Ors. vs Emperor on 5 January, 1921
1. In this matter it is admitted that the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not complied with. After the accused had been examined by the Magistrate, one witness, at any rate, for the prosecution was subsequently examined. The Magistrate frankly admits that this was an irregularity, but says (quite possibly correctly) that his error did not really occasion any failure of justice. However, whether his view on that point is correct or not, it would seem that there is authority which is binding on me, to the effect that this omission to examine the accused after the case for the prosecution has been closed, or rather after all the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined, is a fatal defect and cannot be cured by trying to bring into operation the provisions of Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case of Raghu Bhumij v. Emperor 68 Ind. Cas. 49 : 5 P.L.J. 430 : 1 P.L.T. 241 : 21 Cr. L.J. 705 appears to be a decision directly in point.