JUDGMENT

Stuart, J. - The first point raised by the learned Counsel for the: applicants is one upon which there has been divergence of opinion in Courts, in India, It appears from the record that the witnesses for the prosecution against the applicants were examined-in-chief up to the 10th April 1922, and on that date the applicants were questioned generally oh the case by the trying Magistrate under the provision's of Section 342 before they were called on for their defence. After that the witnesses for the prosecution were cross-examined, and further, one witness, a head constable, Ram Gopal Singh, was examined for the first time for the prosecution. The evidence which he gave was to the effect that he had arrested the applicants. The point taken by the learned Counsel is that by examining this head constable after the statement of the accused had been taken, the Trying Magistrate acted contrary to the provisions of Section 342. The learned Counsel is undoubtedly right in that contention. Under the provisions of Section 342 all the prosecution witnesses should have been examined-in-chief before the final questions were put to the applicants. The applicants were not examined again