Ram Charan Singh and Another vs Emperor

Adami, J.—The only point taken in this application is the fact that the provisions of Section 342 have not been complied with in the trial of the petitioners and, therefore, the trial and the convictions found against the petitioners are vitiated.

It appears that the petitioners were not examined u/s 342 until about two months had elapsed after the petitioners had entered upon their defence. The learned Sessions Judge holds that, as the defence could not be prejudiced in any way by the delay in examining the accused u/s 342, the trial could not be held to be vitiated. It may be that the delay did not in fact prejudice the petitioners; but, as has been often held by this Court, the provisions of Section 342 are mandatory. The accused must be examined u/s 342 after the prosecution has closed and before the accused have entered upon their defence, and if the provisions of that section are not observed, the trial is vitiated. In the Calcutta High Court the case of Surendra Lal Shaha Vs. Isamaddi, was a case in which the circumstances were similar to those of the present case, and in that case it was found that the trial was vitiated.

The convictions of the petitioners must be set aside and it is directed that the trial of the petitioners must proceed now from the point where the prosecution closed their ease. The petitioners must be examined as required by Section 342, Criminal P.C., and then be allowed to enter upon their defence. The fines, if paid will be refunded.