Sudhamay Basu, J. :- This application relates to a proceeding in case No.C/131 of 1974 in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta.

2. Mr. Moitra the learned Advocate appearing in support of the motion challenged at first the order dated January 19, 1974 on the ground of non compliance of the provision of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Obviously he did so on the basis of the judgment in the case of Bramhananda Goel reported in 1974 Cri LJ 1079 (Cal). Since then the decision has been set aside by the Special Bench in the case of Tara Dutta v. State, reported in 79 Cal WN 996 = (AIR 1975 SC 450), Mr. Moitra further tried to argue that the recording of the statement was also not in order as he thought that the substance of the examination has not been reduced to writing in terms of the said section. We are unable to accept the validity of his submission. In this connection we may refer to the case of Queen Empress v. Murphy, reported in (1887) ILR 9 All 666. In our view there has been sufficient compliance with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. Mr. Moitra next argued that the order D/-11-2-1974 by which the learned P