George Knox, J.
1. The main point urged before me is that the trial of the petitioners is not in accordance with the law, inasmuch as (1) the report of the Prosecuting Inspector asking that proceedings be taken against the applicants was neither a complaint nor a Police report and the Magistrate should be deemed to have taken cognizance of the case under Section 190(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and (2) all the witnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioners. I have heard all that could be said with reference to the first point by the learned Vakil who appeared for Gulab Rai, but I am unable to attach any weight to it. The case was a case sent up by the Police, and I understand they sent up only one person named Anokhe, and in the Police papers they said that they did not consider the evidence sufficient as against Gulab Rai and Babu Ram. The trial commenced as against Anokhe alone; but after it had gone on to a certain stage, the Prosecuting Inspector intervened and reported that a sufficient prima facie case had been made out against Gulab Rai and Babu Ram. These two men were then proceeded against as accused persons. Such procedure was not procedure which can properly be called taking cognizance of an offence upon the knowledge of the Magistrate or suspicion that such offence had been cotnmitted. The proceeding against Gulab Rai and Babu Ram was the taking cognizance upon the Police report of the facts, and there was nothing irregular in the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate. As regards the second point, I myself have very serious objections to the procedure adopted by the Magistrate in this case. Experience has shown me how evidence already recorded can be read over, and the procedure is not only dangerous but I feel sure that in many cases the person to whom it is read over is not upon his guard to watch and to take note of everything which has been placed upon the record. I understand, however, that in this case Babu Ram was represented in the Court below, and I note that in more than one case the Courts have considered that such procedure, irregular though it be, is covered by Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code, unless objection is taken at once or immediately after the procedure adopted. This being the ease, I am not prepared to interfere. The applications are dismissed.