MOHAMMAD SAYEED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant Mohd. Sayeed stands convicted for an offence under Section 3 (a) Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE main point urged in support of this revision is that despite an application having been made by the applicant before the Magistrate trying him the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161. Criminal P. C. were not supplied to him thereby causing great prejudice to him to put his defence. When 1 had heard this revision a month ago and left it part-heard the intention was that learned Government Advocate would examine the matter and find out whether any documents, as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, were supplied to the applicant.

(3.) TODAY at the further hearing of this revision the learned Government Advocate could only point out that an application on behalf of the applicant is on record, but there does not appear any order having been passed on it by the Magistrate. However,. the. learned Government Advocate submitted that despite nothing having been done on the application of the applicant if the trial continued and he took part in the trial and cross examined the prosecution witnesses and produced witnesses in his defence this Court ought not declare the trial to be vitiated unless the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he has been actually prejudiced.