JUDGMENT : 1. This is a revision against the order of an acquittal dated 24-1-1950 passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Ujjain in Case No. 10 of 1949 (Criminal). 2. Three objections have been raised in this revision. 3. First, that one assessor Mr. Pathak, came late and the Court did not allow him to sit. Second, that the father of Mr. Abdiali, who was counsel for the accused was one of the assessors. 4. Thirdly, that wrong inferences have been drawn from the evidence. 5. With regard to objection 1, a reference to S. 285, Criminal P. C., reveals that if in the course of a trial, any assessor absents himself, the trial can proceed with the aid of the other assessors. And it is obvious that before an assessor should be presumed to give his opinion, he must hear the whole of the case. By absenting himself, if the assessor has missed part of the trial he is not competent to give his opinion. In King-Emperor v. Messeruddin Shikdar, 6 c. W. n. 715, it has been held that the Court should not take his opinion into consideration. Now if Mr. Pathak came late and in consequence missed part of the proceedings, then the trial Court does not appear to have acted amiss in not allowing him to resume his Beat as an assessor. 6. Regarding objection 2, the learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to satisfy me whether this objection was taken in the trial Court. And if it was taken, at what stage? 7. The accused has a right to challenge the jurors, vide S. 277, Criminal P. C. but he possesses no such right if the trial held is with the aid of assessors. The Queen v. Ram Dutt, 23 W.R.Cr. 35. The choice of assessors is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Judge, but it is reasonable to think a Judge in the exercise of his discretion will consider all objections raised by the parties. It may well be remembered that the assessors are merely there to assist the Court but they do not form part of the tribunal which in fact decides the case, Emperor v. Tirumal Reddi, 24 Mad. 523 : (11 M. l. J. 241). 8. It may well be remembered that the assessors are merely there to assist the Court but they do not form part of the tribunal which in fact decides the case, Emperor v. Tirumal Reddi, 24 Mad. 523 : (11 M. l. J. 241). 8. With regard to objections 1 and 2, it may as well be said that S. 537, Criminal P. C. cures all errors, omissions and irregularity during the trial, provided such lapses do not occasion a failure of justice to the accused. The objections raised by the applicant, even if they are considered to be errors or irregularities, are such that the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out, that they in any way have caused failure of justice, and, so on the basis of these objections there is no need to reverse the judgment of the lower Court. 9. With regard to objection 3, nothing has been pointed out to me to arrive at a conclusion that the inferences drawn by the learned Sessions Judge are palpably wrong. In fact so little has been said in this behalf that it may well nigh be assumed that the learned counsel has given up the plea. 10. Revision dismissed.