In Re: Philip

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—The only point that is argued by Mr. Madhusudhanaa is that the non-obtaining of the signature of the accused after the examination of the accused u/s 342, contravenes Section 364(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. No grievance has been made about the inadequacy in the examination of the accused. If the accused had been examined, which fact has not been contravened, then undoubtedly there is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 342. The failure to obtain the signature is nothing more than an irregularity. Section 364(2) says that the record shall be signed by the accused and the Magistrate. Non-compliance with the provisions is curable u/s 533 Code of Criminal. Procedure Such a statement is made admissible Section 533 Code of Criminal Procedure if the error has not injured the accused person as to his defense on the merits of his case. In this case, there is merely an omission to obtain the signature of the accused and nothing more. Therefore, this irregularity is curable and no prejudice has been caused to the accused. There are no grounds to interfere in revision. The conviction and sentence are correct, and proper.

The revision petition is dismissed.