The examination of an accused person under Section 342, Cr.P.C., after the examination of defense witnesses is not illegal and is curable under Section 537 of the Code. The examination of the accused through a pleader is permissible under Section 205, Cr.P.C., and the non-examination of the accused personally does not render the trial illegal.

PANIGRAHI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision directed against an order of Sri M. A. Khan, Magistrate First class, Jajpur, dated 31-12-52, whereby he examined an accused person under section 342, Cr. P. C. , after the examination of the defence witnesses had been completed. The petitioner is the complainant in a case under Sections 447 and 426 I. P. C. There were five accused persons, of whom the first accused Nakhya-tramalini Dei (. Opposite party 1) is a purdanashia lady. She was being represented at the trial by 'mukhetear, M. M. Jena, and her personal attendance was dispensed with under section 205, Cr. P. C. On 17-10-52, the Mukhtear was examined on her behalf. But unfortunately, it appears that he did not sign the statement he made under section 342. The case was posted to 30-12-52, for the examination of defence witnesses and some of them were examined on that date. The case came up for arguments on the next day, namely, 31-12-52. On that day, it was brought to the notice of the court that the Mukhtear had not signed the statement under Section 342, Cr. P. C. It appears that the Mukhtear had died on 11-11-52 and this fact also was brought to the notice of the Court on 31-12-52. It is apparent from these facts, therefore, that the first accused Nakhyatramalini was not represented at the trial when the defence evidence was recorded. The Magistrate accordingly passed the following order:

"after 17-10-52 till yesterday (30-12-52) when the defence witnesses were examined nothing important took place. So, the accused going unrepresented does not matter much. Mukhtear Sri L. B. Das signs her vakalatnama today and submits a petition under Section 205, Cr. P. C. , for her to-day. This is allowed and accepted. Lett him represent her. Sri L. B. Das, Mukhtear, is examined to-day under Section 342, Cr. P. C. representing the accused Nakhyatramalini Dei under Section 205, Cr. P. C. He declines to adduce any evidence or to recall and examine any of the defence witnesses examined yesterday. "

( 2 ) THE statement itself is almost the same as was msde by Mukhtear M. M. Jena who had represented the accused Nakhyatramalini earlier till his death on 11-111952.

( 3 ) THE grievance of the complainant, however, is that the procedure adopted by the trying Magistrate in examining the accused a second time renders the trial illegal and vitiates it and, therefore, that order should be quashed.

( 4 ) SECION 342, Cr. P. C. , enables the Court to "put any questions to the accused at any stage of an enquiry or trial for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. " The section is wide in its language and does not limit the power of the Court to examine the accused at any particular stage. The Court can examine him as often as it thinks it necessary to do so, to enable the accused person to explain any circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, the object of the section being to see whether the accused can give an innocent explanation of the facts spoken to against him. There is nothing in the language of the Section which would prevent the Court from, examining the accused even after the defence evidence has been recorded; and even if the statement had not been signed by the Mukhtear it was open to the court to examine the accused after the defence evidence had been recorded, if anything needed explanation. I am, therefore, unable to find anything illegal in the procedure adopted by the Magistrate. Even if it can be said that the order passed by him is not in accordance with the strict interpretation of Section 342, Cr. P. C. , all that he has done may amount only to an irregularity which is curable under Section 537 of the Code. It was open to the complainant who was represented by pleaders to point' out the irregularity at an earlier stage in the proceeding. Not having done so it appears to me that the objection now taken has no force and the petitioner can have no reasonable cause t