JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - Mere non observance of the provisions of (sic) rigorous imprisonment. His conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal. Aggrieved by that decision he has come up to this Court in revision. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the night between 29-6-1954 and 30-6-1954 when Smt. Sharbati, her husband and he son Virendra Kumar were sleeping, Virendra Kumar was awakened by some noise at about 2.30 in the night. He awakened his mother, Smt. Sharbati. Both of them got down the stairs and found that the first story portion had been chained from inside. Therefore, they went to the other side of the house and found the window bars having been tampered with and up-turned. There, with the aid of a torch they saw that clothes and ornaments had been removed and boxes were lying open. 3. So far as the applicant Bashir is concerned he had been convicted on the ground that Exs. 119, 120 and 123 had been recovered from his possession and Articles 116, 117, 121 and 122 were recovered from the possession of one Ram Saran with whom these articles had been pawned by the accused Bashir Both the courts below have found that the articles had been recovered from his p(sic) sion and Ram Saran and they have f(sic) believed the evidence of Ram Saran(sic) deposed that these articles had been(sic) by Bashir. All these articles(sic) identified as belonging to the(sic) and they had been identified(sic) witnesses. It was not the ca(sic) lant that these articles belong(sic) 4. His defence was that (sic) arrested on the road cross(sic) the prosecution but that (sic) at the railway station.(sic) had been produced(sic) been arrested from(sic) that the defence v(sic) had been doing(sic) which the on(sic) might have g(sic) might be tr(sic) the railway(sic) he was(sic) accept(sic) arre(sic) alleged, much less proved with Ram Saran and I see no reason to differ from the findings arrived at by both the courts below. It has been very vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that no proper questions were put to the accused u/s 342 and, therefore, the whole trial is vitiated. The main allegation against the accused was that these things had been recovered from his possession. Two questions were put to him. It has been very vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the applicant that no proper questions were put to the accused u/s 342 and, therefore, the whole trial is vitiated. The main allegation against the accused was that these things had been recovered from his possession. Two questions were put to him. One was whether the goods which had been recovered from him and which were stolen goods were recovered from him or not and the second question was whether he had pawned the goods with Ram Saran or not and in reply he said 'no'. From the records it appears that while these questions were put there appears to be an omission of the exact mention of the exhibit numbers in those questions and there are blanks. On that ground it is argued that when there are blanks, only vague questions had been put to the accused and, therefore, it cannot be deemed to be a compliance u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure and it should be treated as if no questions had been put to him at all. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant had placed reliance on this Supreme Court decision in the case of Tara Singh v. The State 1951 ALJ. 640 (SC). That was a case in which the statement made by the accused in the committing magistrate's court was read over to the accused in the court of sessions and he was asked whether that statement was correct or not. Thereafter no questions were put to him. On these facts it was held that: Merely asking the accused in the Sessions Court whether the statements made before the Committing Magistrate and his answers given there were correctly recorded, or omission to examine the accused on points appearing in the evidence given before the Sessions Judge, amounts to non-compliance with the requirements of Section 342, which vitiates the trial if prejudice occurs or is likely to occur. In that very case their Lordships of the Supreme Court have further held: Every error or omission in this behalf does not necessarily vitiate a trial because the errors of this type fall within the category of curable irregularities. Therefore, the question in each case defends upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to have been occasioned. Therefore, the question in each case defends upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to have been occasioned. This ruling to my mind does not apply to the facts of the present case. The original trial in this case was held by a first class magistrate and there had been no commitment proceedings at all. Therefore, there was no question of reading of the statement which was made before the committing magistrate. In the above cited case there was one more fact that the evidence before the court of session was different from that which was given in the court of the committing magistrate and no further questions were put on the further evidence which was adduced in the court of session and under those circumstances their Lordships of the Supreme Court had made the above observation. 6. Moreover, in a subsequent decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Wasin Khan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1956 AWR (HC) 371 their Lordships have held: As the statement of the Appellant before the Committing Magistrate was admissible in evidence u/s 287 it was not necessary for the Sessions Judge to specifically repeat the same when the Appellant admitted his statement before the committing magistrate, as correct when read out to him. If the statement before the committing magistrate was read and admitted to be correct and if there was no fresh evidence before the court of session the trial would not be vitiated. 7. It was further argued that there should have been a strict compliance of Section 342 because it was not an idle formality and reliance was placed on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Chikkarange Gowda and Others Vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1956 SC 731 wherein their Lordships have said that compliance with the provisions of Section 342 was not a mere idle formality. In that very case their Lordships had further observed that: Even where the examination of the accused to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing against him is neither full nor very satisfactory, it does not vitiate the whole trial if no serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. 8. In that very case their Lordships had further observed that: Even where the examination of the accused to enable him to explain the circumstances appearing against him is neither full nor very satisfactory, it does not vitiate the whole trial if no serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. 8. Each individual case will have to be decided on its own facts and that is what their Lordships have laid down in the case of Bimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa 1956 AWR (Supp.) 89 where their Lordships have observed: As to what is or is not a full compliance with the provision of Section 342 of the Code must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not ordinarily necessary to put the evidence of each individual witness to the accused in his examination u/s 342. Where the accused was put the question "have you got anything to say on the evidence of the witnesses ? 9. It was held that: That was sufficient in the circumstances of the case to show that the attention of the accused was called to the prosecution evidence. It could not be said that the accused had been in any way prejudiced by the way he had been questioned under that section. 10. The crucial point in every case where the provisions of Section 342 have not been observed is whether any prejudice has been caused to the applicant or not. Learned Counsel for the applicant has not been able to show how the applicant had been prejudiced. So far as the articles which were recovered are concerned, they had been put before the different witnesses who had identified them and a definite question was put to the accused whether the articles had been recovered from his possession or not. It is true that in the question the number of exhibits had not been mentioned but the attention of the applicant had been drawn towards the article that had been recovered and in the circumstances I think that there had been no prejudice and if there had been no prejudice it cannot be said that mere non-observance of the provisions of Section 342 will vitiate the trial. In this case, even in the appellate court, the learned Counsel for the applicant had not been able to show how the prejudice had been caused. In this case, even in the appellate court, the learned Counsel for the applicant had not been able to show how the prejudice had been caused. In another case Moseb Kaka Chowdhry v. State of W. Bengal AWR (Supp) their Lordships of the Supreme Court had observed that it is well settled that "a judgment is not to be set aside merely by reason of inadequate compliance with Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure clear prejudice must be shown." It is thus clear that clear prejudice must be shown. This Court has clarified the position in relation to cases where the accused is represented by counsel at the trial and in appeal. It is upto the accused or his counsel in such cases to satisfy the Court that such inadequate examination has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Actually their Lordships have held that it must be clearly shown whether the prejudice had occurred. In the case of K.C. Mathew v. State of Travancore Cochin 1956 AWR (Supp) 34 their Lordships have laid down: Though that is not necessarily fatal, ordinarily it will be very difficult to sustain a plea of prejudice unless the Court is told where the shoe pinches. It is true that in certain exceptional cases prejudice, or a reasonable likelihood of prejudice, may be so patent on the face of the facts that nothing more is needed; but that class of case must be exceptional. 11. Thus, as no prejudice has been shown, I do not think it is a case in which the accused has in any way suffered even if there had been an irregularity in the compliance of Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Learned Counsel for the applicant has next argued that the appellate court had not discussed the defence evidence. I have gone through the defence evidence and I think that it does not in any way help the accused. The defence witnesses have only been produced to show that Bashir was a businessman and he had been going to the station. It might have been of some value if a case had been against him u/s 110, Code of Criminal Procedure but that is quite irrelevant in the present case. Under the circumstances, non-discussion of the defence evidence by the appellate court also does not in any way affect the case. 13. It might have been of some value if a case had been against him u/s 110, Code of Criminal Procedure but that is quite irrelevant in the present case. Under the circumstances, non-discussion of the defence evidence by the appellate court also does not in any way affect the case. 13. Lastly, it has been argued on the question of sentence. In the circumstances of the case, I think the ends of justice will be met if his sentence is reduced from two years' rigorous imprisonment to one year's rigorous imprisonment. With this modification the application in revision is dismissed. The accused is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds and serve out the sentence.