P.N. Harkauli, J. - (1.) THE applicants were tried by Hari Ram, Canal, Magistrate, Second Class, Bijnor under Sec. 70 of the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act 8 of 1873 and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each.
(2.) THE allegation against them was that they damaged a Kachchi Nali of the Government Tube well. THEir appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. THEreupon, the present revision application was filed. It was contended that the com plaint was sent by the complainant through post and so the learned Magis trate was not entitled to take cogniz ance of the case and thus the entire proceedings were illegal. It is true that the complaint which was made by private person was sent by post and no statement of the complainant was recorded immediately upon the receipt of the complaint as required under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. but this is only an irregularity in taking cogniz ance of the case and summoning the applicants. This irregularity cannot, in the absence of proof of any prejudice vitiate the trial. No prejudice has been shown. Indeed this objection was not even raised in the trial court. It must therefore be held that this irregularity was cured by Sec. 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
(3.) THIS revision has no force and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.;