ORDER :- This is a revision against the judgement of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhadrak, convicting the two petitioners under Section 323, I.P.C. and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and sentencing them to pay various amounts of line. The trial was held summarily and the two following important questions of law were urged by Mr. Dhal in support of this revision petition : (i) The judgement was dictated by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and typed by his stenographer and then signed by him. This would amount to a contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 265(1), Cri. P.C. Hence according to Mr. Dhal the judgement is not a judgement in accordance with law. (ii) The substance of the evidence has not been recorded in the manner required by Section 264, Cri. P.C. In my opinion neither of these contentions is sustainable. 2. So far as the recording of evidence is concerned the Magistrate has recorded in full almost verbatim all the answers given by the prosecution witnesses in cross- examination though his recording of the examination-in-chief is somewhat brief and contains only the substance of the depositions of the witnesses. But no prejudice has been shown to have been caused by the adoption of this procedure and so long as the record of the Cross-examination is full mere tan be no question of any prejudice. In Mir Gulam Hussain v. SK. Hapan, Criminal Revn. No. 385 of 1960 : (1965) (1) Cri LJ 408 (Orissa) disposed of yesterday I have discussed this point and have also distinguished the Bombay case, reported in Krishna Nayar Rani Nayar v. State, AIR 1960 Bom 107 . In my opinion, therefore, there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of Section 264, Cri. P. Code. 3. As regards the first contention Mr. Dhal relied very much on the decision of a Single Judge of the Mysore High Court reported in Nagappa Setty v. Holalkere Municipal Council, AIR 1955 Mys 109 where the difference in language between S. 265(1) and S. 357(1), Cri. P.C. regarding the mode of writing a judgement has been noticed and it was observed that where a case is tried summarily by a Magistrate, the judgement must be written by him in his own hand. P.C. regarding the mode of writing a judgement has been noticed and it was observed that where a case is tried summarily by a Magistrate, the judgement must be written by him in his own hand. The learned Judge of the Mysore High Court appears to have gone to the extent of saying that if the judgement is not written by the Magistrate in his own hand in such cases the entire trial will be vitiated. But this view was not accepted by the Allahabad High Court in a later decision reported in Abdul Aziz v. State, AIR 1956 All 637 . 4. I may in this connection refer to the judgement of the Supreme Court in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 194 which will be of some assistance in discussing this question of law. Assuming that the language of Section. 265(1), Cri. P.C. requires that the Presiding Officer must write judgements in summary trials in his own hand the question ultimately will be whether it is an irregularity curable under Section 537, Cri. P.C. or an illegality which vitiates the trial itself. Clause (a) of Sec. 537 Cri. P.C. expressly says that any error omission or irregularity in a judgement will not by itself be a ground for reversing the sentence unless prejudice is proved to have been caused. Their Lordships in the aforesaid case held that so long as the judgement is validly delivered even such an omission as failure on the part of the Presiding Officer to sign the judgement and authenticate it would be a mere irregularity, and it will not suffice to vitiate the entire proceeding. Here the Magistrate got the judgement typewritten, presumably by some member of his staff and he has also given an endorsement to the effect that the judgement was pronounced in open court on the 4th April 1962. He has also given a further certificate to the effect that it was dictated and corrected by him.Mr. Dhal did not challenge the correctness of the aforesaid endorsement or certificate nor could he show that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the omission of the Magistrate to write the judgement in his own hand. He has also given a further certificate to the effect that it was dictated and corrected by him.Mr. Dhal did not challenge the correctness of the aforesaid endorsement or certificate nor could he show that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the omission of the Magistrate to write the judgement in his own hand. Following the principles laid down in the aforesaid Supreme Court case I must hold that the judgement was validly delivered in open court and hence the mere failure on the part of the Magistrate to write it out in his own hand and his action in getting it typewritten at his dictation, will at best he mere irregularity curable under Section 537, Cri. P.C. 5. I would accordingly prefer to follow the decision of the Allahabad High Court in AIR 1956 All 637 to the earlier decision of a single judge of the Mysore High Court in (S) AIR 1955 Mys. 109 relied on by Mr. Dhal. 6. There is no other point of law involves, in this case. The conviction and sentence are maintained and the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.