ORDER 1. We concur in the view expressed in Forbes v. Muhammad Ali Haider Khan 90 Ind, Cas. 308 : 53 C. 46 : 42 C.L.J. 131 : 26 Cr. L.J. 1524 : A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 1246 and Khushal Jeram v. Emperor 97 Ind. Cas. 671 : 50 B. 680 : 28 Bom. L.R. 1026 27 Cr. L.J. 1151: A.I.R. 1926 Bom. 534, that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings. The question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused. We see no reason to conclude that it has been prejudicial in this instance. 2. The petition is dismissed.