CHINNAPPA AND 5 OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point urged in support of this revision case is that the trial court had not examined the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. after further cross-examination, and this has prejudiced the petitioners considerably. On this ground, the learned Counsel for the petitioners asks that a retrial should be ordered. I do not think there is much substance in this contention. As pointed out by the courts below, nothing further has been elicited in the further cross-examination against any of the accused. That being so, I do not think the failure to question the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C, after further cross-examination vitiates the trial. It is an irregularity which is curable under Section 537 Cr.P.C. as it has not been shown that any prejudice has been occasioned to the petitioners. It is only in cases where real prejudice has been caused to an accused person by the omission to give an opportunity to the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, that would necessitate a retrial. But where no prejudice has been caused by the omission, the conviction will not be set aside and a retrial ordered, in view of the provisions of Section 537 Cr.P.C. If authority is wanted for this position, it is found in Habeeb Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad, 1954 M.W.N. 233 The conviction is therefore confirmed. The sentence cannot be said to be excessive.