Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. This is a criminal revision petition tiled by the accused against the conviction and sentence of fine imposed on him for an offence under Sections 379 or 424, I. P.C. The case against the petitioner is that he dishonestly cut and removed two trees which stood at the backyard of the house belonging to the complainant.

2. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that the failure of the Magistrate to examine the accused under Section 342, Criminal P.C., after all the prosecution witnesses were examined, is an illegality which vitiates the whole trial. There is no doubt as to the facts which have to be taken into consideration in deciding this technical objection. After the examination of P. Ws. 1 to 3 a charge was framed on 4th May 1929 and then an additional witness, namely. P. W. 4, was examined on 28th June 1929. After the examination of this additional witness the Court did not question the accused in accordance with Section 342, Criminal P.C. According to Clause (1) of this section, it is obligatory on the Magistrate to question the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence agai