JUDGMENT Madeley, J. - This is an application in revision. Eight persons were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 147, 426/149, 452/149 and 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code Separate sentences of fine and imprisonment were inflicted. The sentences of imprisonment under Sections 452 and 325 read with Section 149 were to run concurrently. They appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal in every respect except that he reduced the sentence of Dulam Dayal Singh, the ziledar of the Ajodhiya estate, to nine months' rigorous imprisonment from one year u/s 325, I.P.C. All the convicted persons, except Triloki, have now come in revision to this Court. 2. The facts necessary for this revision are that Dulam Dayal Singh is ziledar of the Ajodhiya estate and Puran and Triloki are his peons. The applicants Shyama Charan, Ram Charitra and Jai Karan are thekedars of the Maharajganj Bazar which belongs to the Ajodhiya estate. The other two applicants Jagdamba Singh and Raj Karan are brothers of Jai Karan Singh. Near this Bazar there is an "ahata" which is the subject-matter of dispute between the estate and Hari Shankar complainant. The estate and Hari Shankar both claimed to be in possession of the "ahata". It has been held that on the 4th April, 1943, at about 5-45 p.m. Dulam Dayal along with the other accused went to the "ahata" and forcibly took possession of it. The complainant resisted and then the 8 persons gave him a beating causing 8 injuries, out of which 2 were grievous, one a fracture of the ulna and the other a fracture of the 5th metacarpal bone of the right hand. At 6 p.m. on the same day the complainant lodged a report in Maharajganj police station, but in this report Dulam Dayal Singh, Puran, Shyama Charan and Jai Karan Singh alone were mentioned. Triloki; Raj Karan Singh, Jagdamba Singh and Ram Charitra Singh were not mentioned. Next morning he was going to have himself medically examined but he was stopped by some of the applicants and he took refuge in the shop of his brother Jumna Lal by the roadside. While he was there Mr. Sham Behari Lal revenue Officer passed by, Mr. Sham Behari Lal got the lathis of the persons, who had stopped him and were sitting a short distance off, removed and complained about the incident. Mr. While he was there Mr. Sham Behari Lal revenue Officer passed by, Mr. Sham Behari Lal got the lathis of the persons, who had stopped him and were sitting a short distance off, removed and complained about the incident. Mr. Sham Behari Lal said that Mr. Madani, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, would shortly be passing that way and a complaint might be made to him. The complainant and Ors. stopped Mr. Madani and told him the story. Mr. Madani sent for the report and, after seeing it and hearing what the complainant and his companions had to say, passed an order that the case should be investigated against all the 8 accused. 3. It is argued first of all that Mr. Madani's order was warranted by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has prejudiced the applicants whose names were not mentioned in the first information report. It appears to me, however, that the complaint made to Mr. Madani can be a complaint u/s 190(a), Code of Criminal Procedure, and if so, in sending the case for investigation to the Sub-Inspector, he was acting u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure It is true that he did not take the statement of the complainant on oath before sending the case for investigation to the Sub-Inspector as he should have done. But this point was not taken in the lower Courts by the accused and does not vitiate the trial so long as the accused have not been prejudiced. I do not see how the accused can have been prejudiced by Mr. Madani's failure to take the statement of Hari Shanker on oath. The learned Assistant Government Advocate cites In Re: Ramjas Marwari, AIR 1936 Patna 145 , Emperor v. Heman Gope AIR 1920 Pat. 232, Bateshar and Others Vs. Emperor, AIR 1915 All 417 , Molaiappa Goundan v. Emperor AIR 1929 Md. 1235, AIR 1924 258 (Lahore) and note 16 to Section 200 in Chitaley's Code of Criminal Procedure, Vol. I, P. 1152 (2nd Edition). The irregularity, he says, is cured by Section 537(a), Code of Criminal Procedure. There is plenty of authority for this view. 4. The Sub-Inspector Naimullah Khan, who took down the first report, was produced as a defence witness. I, P. 1152 (2nd Edition). The irregularity, he says, is cured by Section 537(a), Code of Criminal Procedure. There is plenty of authority for this view. 4. The Sub-Inspector Naimullah Khan, who took down the first report, was produced as a defence witness. Applicants' learned Counsel does not press the ground that it was impossible in the circumstances to prove the statements made u/s 162, Code of Criminal Procedure, but he says that there was no discussion of his evidence by the lower appellate Court. I find, however, that both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court discussed the evidence of the Sub-Inspector. 5. Lastly, he argues that the infliction of separate sentences under each of the Sections charged offends against the provisions of Section 71, I.P.C. This argument is based upon AIR 1940 120 (Nagpur) which interprets some remarks made in Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. The King Emperor (1925) 52 I.A. 40 at 44 and comes to the conclusion that separate sentences in such cases as the present are illegal. The opposite conclusion has, however, been adopted in Raghubar v. Emperor 1939 O.A. 134 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 14: O.W.N. 27. The question depends upon the interpretation put upon the remarks of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. The King Emperor (1925) 52 I.A. 40 at 44. I am in entire agreement with the interpretation already put upon that decision by this Court. 6. It has also been argued that the sentences of nine months on the ziledar and the thekadars are too severe. They got nine months each. It cannot, however, be said that the lower appellate Court has erred in the exercise of its discretion in inflicting sentences. Complainant was severely injured. The ziledar was so keen to curry favour with the estate that he took this high-handed action. Apparently the thekedars joined in for the same reason. It has been held that the ziledar himself caused one of the grievous hurts. This has been challenged but it is a finding of fact. 7. I see no reason to interfere in revision, and I, therefore, dismiss the application.