JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, J. - Ram Murti Brahman of village Lakhan, police station Isaragar, district Lakhimpur Kheri, has been ordered to execute a personal bond of Rs. 250 to he of good behavior for a year u/s 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He was ordered by the Magistrate to furnish a surety as well but this portion of the order has been set aside in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. He has filed a revision against that order. 2. Ram Murti was found concealing his presence in a dilapidated house at about 2-30 a. m. on the 19th April, 1945, in 'village Charya, a hamlet of village Kolia, in police station Tambaur. He was noticed by some villagers, who raised an alarm on seeing him, and the constables who were on the night patrol on hearing the noise immediately rushed to the place and arrested him. He tried to run away but was captured. He was found in possession of a house-breaking implement, a match and a larhi. The report was made (sic) morning at 7 a.m. The case was registered on the 27th April. It was adjourned on two occasions as the witnesses did not turn up. 3. The evidence was, however, recorded on the 4th June and on the 6th June a charge purporting to be a notice u/s 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was read out to him and he was called upon to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. 4. In defense Ram Murti denied the facts and said that he was taken away by the chaukidars to the police station at about mid-day on the ground that he was wanted by the police and that he was not found under suspicious circumstances as stated by the prosecution. He produced defense evidence, but this was disbelieved. 5. It has been contended on behalf of Ram Murti that the notice u/s 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being in contravention of the provisions required by law, the whole proceedings were illegal and ought to have been set aside. He produced defense evidence, but this was disbelieved. 5. It has been contended on behalf of Ram Murti that the notice u/s 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being in contravention of the provisions required by law, the whole proceedings were illegal and ought to have been set aside. Section 112 requires that when a Magistrate acting u/s 109 and certain other sections deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required. Section 113 lays down that if the person is present in Court, the order shall be read over to him, or if he so desires the substance thereof shall be explained to him. Section 114 deals with a case where the person is not present in Court in which case a summons is to issue to him requiting him to appear. Section 115 requires that a summon issued u/s 114 shall be accompanied by a copy of an order made u/s 112 and this copy is to be delivered to the person served with the notice, Having regard to the fact that Ram Murti was present in Court, ail that the Magistrate was required to do was to read over the order to him or to explain its substance It is not denied that the order was read over on the 6th June and the accused was questioned about the whole case, his attention being pointedly drawn to the circumstances appearing against him. It is, however, pointed out that this was illegal and the order should have been read over at the first hearing of the case before the prosecution evidence started. No grievance was made of this fact before the trial Magistrate. It was not suggested then, nor is it suggested here, that the applicant was unaware of the case against him or that the was in any way prejudiced. I am of opinion that the omission to read the order at the commencement of the proceedings does not render them illegal and the defect is curable u/s 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of opinion that the omission to read the order at the commencement of the proceedings does not render them illegal and the defect is curable u/s 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This view is supported by the decision in Queen-Empress v. Bhagwan Das 1891 A.W.N. 40 where it was held that the omission on the part of a Magistrate calling upon a person to find security for good behavior to make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received etc' as required by Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not in itself an irregularity which will vitiate the proceedings, but will become so only if a failure of justice has been thereby occasioned. 6. A similar view had been taken by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Empress of India v. mahammad Jafir (1881) 3 All. 545 and a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Abasu. Beam v. Umaa Khanum (1881) 8 Cal. 724. 7. A Bench of the Sind Judicial Commissioner's Court in Tanwor v. Emperor (1926) 26 Cr. LJ 1398 . following the Allahabad and Calcutta view has summed up the legal position in the following passage: In a proceeding u/s 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. the mere failure of the Magistrate to incorporate the substance of the information which he has received in the notice issued u/s 112 of the Code does not render the subsequent proceedings abinitio void and an absolute nullity. The object of Section 112 in requiring the substance of the information to be given in the notice is to afford reasonable opportunity to the suspect to come prep red with what he has to meet, and a mere re-production of a clause of Section 110 in the notice is not a sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 112 The failure to comply with the directions contained in Section 112 does not, however, divest the Magistrate of his jurisdiction to dead with the suspect, which he assumes when the information is given to him. It amounts to a grave and substantial irregularity which renders it necessary for the Courts of Appeal and of Revision to scrutinize the subsequent proceedings carefully, and if it is shown that me accused has been prejudiced in the slightest degree to set aside the order of the lower Court, but in the absence of such prejudice, the a sequent proceedings cannot be treated as a initio void. 8. The point is dealt with at some length in a decision of this Court in Debi Prasad v. King-Emperor 1944 O. A. 3 : A.W.R. (C.C.) 3 : O.W.N.1 where after referring to the pronouncements of their Lordships of the Privy Council it was held that an error or illegality can be cured by Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the accused has been prejudiced thereby. The observation of King J. in Kallu v. Bashiruddin (1931) 53 all. 172 which is quoted in the above decision with reference to the pronouncement of the Privy Council in Abdul Rahman v. The King-Emperor (1927) 5 Ring. 53 may be quoted: In the face of this pronouncement it is no longer open to the Courts in India to hold that mere fact that an imperative statutory rule of procedure has been broken is enough to vitiate the trial or proceeding. It is clear that the Courts should consider the gravity of the irregularity or omission and whether it might have worked actual injustice to the accused. 9. The contrary view expressed in re Abdul Rahiman Sahib 11 Weir Report 55, In re Subba Naicken (1905) 6 Cr. L J 332 and Krishnaswami Thatachari v. Vanamatnahai Bhashiakar (1907) 30 Mad 382 cannot be accepted as good law. 10. Learned Counsel drew my attention to an unreported judgment dated the 1st August, 1940, by the learned Chief Judge (Hon'ble Sir George Thomas) in Raj Baksh Singh v. King Emperor, Criminal Revision No. 87 of 1940. That case is distinguishable. There in proceedings u/s 107 against several persons the notice which was read out did not contain all the allegations and charges against the accused, nor was the case of each of them dealt with separately. That case is distinguishable. There in proceedings u/s 107 against several persons the notice which was read out did not contain all the allegations and charges against the accused, nor was the case of each of them dealt with separately. A later decision of the Hon'ble Chief Judge in Asharfi Lal v. King-Emperor 1914 O.A.I. 37 : A.W.R. (CC) 137 : O.W.N. 190 following the Privy Council pronouncement says: A breach of an imperative statutory rule of procedure is not necessarily, enough to vitiate the whole proceedings. The sale criterion given by Section 537 Code of Criminal Procedure is whether the accused person has been prejudiced or not. The object of procedure is to enable the Court to do justice but if inspite of even a tota1 disregard of the rules of procedure, justice has been done, there would exist no necessity for setting aside the final order which is just and correct simply because the procedure adopted was wrong. 11. Next it has been contended that before Section 109(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can apply it must be shown that the Act of concealment is not an isolated act but a continuous one. This contention is based on the decision in Reshu Kaviraj v. The King-Emperor (1895) 22 Cal W.N. 163 which was followed in Sheikh Piru Vs. King-Emperor, AIR 1925 Cal 616 , Gobra Badia v. Emperor A.I.R.1929. Cal.729 and Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Isabali, AIR 1938 Cal 409 . This view was expressly dissented. from by the full Bench of the Allahabad. High Court in Emperor v. Phuchai (1928) 50 All 909. In dissenting from the view of Shamsul Huda J. in the case of Reshu Kaviraj v. King-Emperor, Sulaiman, A.C.J., went on to say: Taking the language of the Sub-section literally, one might at first sight think that the taking of precautions should continue still the time when the informations in is received, but a too literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result. In view of the other provi(sic) of the Act it is clear that such a narrow coailruction cannot be accepted. In view of the other provi(sic) of the Act it is clear that such a narrow coailruction cannot be accepted. Section 55 Sub-clause (1)(a), authorizes a police officer to arrest in person 'found' taking precautions to Cone this presence within the local (sic) of his police suitor under circumstances which off and reason to believe that he is taking such precaution as with a view to commit a Cognizable offence Section 60 requires the officer to produce the person before a Magistrate without a necessary delay. We also find that a person who may be ordered to show cause u/s 109 may actually be present in Court (Section 113) or may be in the custody of a police officer (Section 114). Similarly, Section 117 allows the order to show cause being made against a person who is present in Court or who is brought before a Magistrate. It is thus clear that the Sub-section cannot be interpreted too literally so as to necessitate the continuance of taking precautions till the formation is received by he Magistrate. 12. I must concede that the use of that present continuous tense, is taking", is unhappy. But I have no doubt that it is intended to be comprehensive enough to cover the present perfect tense, "has taken" or "has been taking". The difficulty in holding that it is not a momentary but a continuous act that is contemplated would be where to draw the line. Is the act continuous when it lasts for one-hour, one night, one week or more? Does it become continuous if it is repeated once, twice, thrice or more ? Again man may never con ceil himself in the day time but may take precautions to (sic) his presence night after night: Would the continuity be broke bee use there was, (sic)ent during the day? Furthermore, the section is a preventive section interred to frustrate the designs of a criminally minded person before they are carried out. It the idea of continuity were pushed far enough, an arrest at the very out set of' the prep(sic) would be impossible, as the police would always have to want till the designs have gone in for some time and have been persisted in It seems to me that no (sic)mit can be put on the taking of ;(sic) tios. in. in. every cash it would be a question of fact who ther the circom(sic)ces justify the (sic)-ence that he has been taking precautions to conceal his (sic) and that there was the intention to commit an offence." 13. I have given a long quotation from his judgment, as in my opinion it correctly enunciates the legal position The view in Gobra Badia v. Emperor was not accepted by Thomas J (afterwards Sir George Thomas C.J.) in Manik v. King-Emperor (1934) 11 O.W.N. 935 , To the same effect are the decisions in Harbans Narain Singh and Others Vs. Mohammad Sayeed and Others, AIR 1926 Patna 51 , Sukhan Ahir Vs. Emperor, AIR 1930 Patna 497 , Emperor v. Bishi Samara AIR 1935 Pat 69 and In re Ganpati Barwa. Mahar AIR 1931 Nag 465. 14. Lastly it has been contended that the case u/s 109(a) was not substantiated as the no ice mentioned that the applicant was taking precautions to conceal his presence in a field while the precautions evidence altered it to a khandhal in the village abaci. In my opinion this is not a fatal defect. As I have already observed, the applicant, after the precautions witnesses were examined in his presence, was expressly questioned about it, and it cannot be said that he was in any way prejudiced. 15. There is no substance in this revision application which is accordingly dismissed.