( 1 ) MR. Sompura then contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not complied with the provisions contained in sec. 356 (2) and 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His grievance is that the evidence of Dr. Thomas Ex. 22 has been recorded only in English; the accused knew only Gujarati and since it does not appear about the translation of his evidence having been explained to him in Gujarati the trial according to him is vitiated in law. That according to him would be a breach of clause (2) of sec. 356 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The other objection taken by him is that as contemplated in clause (1) of sec. 361 of the Criminal Procedure Code whenever any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused and he is present in person it shall be interpreted to him in open Court in a language understood by him. That having not been done the learned Sessions Judge had committed an error of law and such an error is not curable as sec. 537 of Criminal Procedure Code. It should therefore be held that the trial is vitiated.

( 2 ) IF we turn to clause (2) of sec. 356 of the Criminal Procedure Code we find that when the evidence of such witness is given in E