The failure to examine the complainant before issuing process is an irregularity, but it does not vitiate the trial in the absence of prejudice or injustice to the accused. The irregularity is cured by the curative antidote provided in Section 537 of the CrPC.

If this revisional application to be taken up for consideration in spite of its being filed seven days beyond the date on which it should have been filed, then the only question that would arise for consideration is that when a complaint is not made by a Court or by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, whether failure to examine the complainant after taking of cognizance and before issuing process would vitiate the trial. First, therefore, to the question as to the maintainability of this revisional application in spite of the delay as aforesaid.

2. Mr. Sharma, the learned Advocate for the Accused-Petitioner, has submitted that this revisional application must be held to be maintainable for two reasons. Firstly, he has urged that once this revisional application has been admitted and has now been fixed for hearing, it can no longer be thrown out on the ground of limitation and must be heard on merits. Secondly, he has urged that the Accused-Petitioner has filed an application, supported by affidavit, explanining sufficiently and satisfactorily the reason for the delay of seven days, the reason being his sudden and serious illness in a remote village where he resides and as such the delay made in filing the application is to be condoned.

3. I must regret my inability to agree with the proposition propounded by Mr. Sharma that once the revisional application is admitted, it must be proceeded with and carried through judgment on merits and cannot be rejected as time-barred even though filed long beyond the due date and without any explanation for the delay and I must respectfully dissent from the three decisions of the Patna High Court, relied on by Mr. Sharma, which, no doubt, support his contention. The three Patna decisions relied on by Mr. Sharma are Lalo Mahto v. Emperor (AIR 1942 Pat 150), Zainab Bibi v. Anwar Khan (AIR 1946 Pat 104) and State of Bihar v. Bipat Gope (AIR 1961 Pat 247).

4. In Lalo Mahto v. Emperor (AIR 1942 Pat 150), it was observed (at p. 152) by Verma, J., sitting singly, that "when the petition has been admitted, the question of limitation is not of much importance in a criminal revision about which no limitation has been fixed by the statute". In Zainab Bibi v. Anwar Khan (AIR 1946 Pat 104), it was observed (at p. 105) by Pande, J., sitting singly, relying on Lalo Mahto's case, that "once the petition has been admitted by the Court, it has got to be considered on its merit and the plea of limitation does not apply particularly when there is no period prescribed by the statute for such application". In State of Bihar v. Bipat Gope (AIR 1961 Pat 247), Chaudhury, J., sitting singly, relied on Lalo Mahto's case and Bibi Zainab's case and observed (at p. 251) that once a criminal revision, though filed after the due date, has been admitted, "it must be taken that......the delay has been condoned" and that after it has been once admitted "it has to be decided on merit and it cannot be thrown out simply on the ground that it was filed beyond sixty days".

5. In all the three Patna decisions, it was accepted that though there was no statutory period of limitation for a criminal revisional application yet such an application was, according to the practice of the High Court, settled by judicial decisions, to be filed within sixty days. It was also accepted, as will appear from Bipat Cope's case (AIR 1961 Pat 247), that the Court could "condone the delay in proper cases". Now if it is accepted that a criminal revision has to be initiated within a certain period, and cannot be entertained if initiated beyond such period unless the delay is condoned by the Court, then it is obvious that the principle of natural justice would require that the other party to the proceeding is to be heard as to whether such delay is to be condoned or not, or if already condoned without notice to him and in his absence, whether it has been properly condoned. For otherwise, it would, as