1. This Rule must be made absolute on the ground that the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code were not complied with. Though the accused was examined under that section after the examination-in-chief of the witnesses for the prosecution, that is not sufficient. The examination of the witnesses cannot be held to have been concluded until they have also been cross-examined. This is the view taken by the Patna High Court in the case of Mitarjit Singh v. Emperor 63 Ind. Cas. 825; (1922) A.I.R. (Pat.) 158 : 6 P.L.J. 614 : 2 P.L.T. 520 : 22 Cr. L.J. 697, and that decision has been followed by this Court in the case of Kashi Pramanik v. Damn Pramanik 77 Ind. Cas. 988 : 27 C.W.N. 28 : 25 Cr. L.J. 521.
2. We accordingly make this Rule absolute, and set aside the conviction and sentence passed, on the petitioner. We remit the case to the Trial Court in order thai; the provisions of, Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be followed, and the matter disposed of in accordance with law.