Pandrang Row, J.
1. The only point pressed in this case is that the omission of the Sub-Magistrate to examine the petitioner (accused in the case before him) under Section 342, Criminal P.C., afresh at the de novo trial is an illegality which has vitiated the trial. It has not been contended that new matter was introduced into the evidence during the de novo trial for the first time or that there was anything in the evidence at the trial about which the accused had not already given his explanation. In other words, there has been no prejudice to the accused in consequence of the omission to examine him a second time under Section 342, Criminal P.C. and it is not alleged that there has been any miscarriage of justice in consequence of the omission. The Full Bench ruling in Varisai Rowther v. King-Emperor 1923 Mad. 609, relied upon by the petitioner's advocate does not go to the length of laying down that the omission to examine the accused for a second time during a de novo trial is an illegality which vitiates the trial, and my attention has not been drawn to any case in which it was decided that in every de novo trial, there must be a fresh examination of the accused under Section 342, Criminal P.C. The object of Section 342, Criminal P.C. is to provide the accused with an opportunity of being told by the Court of the matters appearing in the evidence against him and of explaining the same. This object has been fully achieved in the present case and there has been no real failure to comply with the provisions of Section 342, Criminal P.C.
2. I am therefore of opinion that the omission complained of in this case is not an illegality which vitiates the trial; at the most, it is only an irregularity to which Section 537, Criminal P.C. applies. The petition is therefore dismissed.