Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have been found guilty and convicted of the offence punishable under S.323 IPC. The case was tried summarily by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Karunagapally and being a summons case the procedure laid down for summons case was followed. When the accused appeared the particulars of the offence were explained to them and they were asked to show cause why they should not be convicted. The accused pleaded not guilty. Witnesses were then examined for the prosecution. Besides the evidence of Pw.1, there was the evidence of three other eye witnesses Pws. 2 to 4. The accused examined no witnesses on their side. On a consideration of the prosecution evidence the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted them. Aggrieved with the order this revision petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel rightly refrained from canvassing the correctness of the findings of fact, realising that the scope of the exercise of the revisional powers of this court is very limited. The only point that was argued and which arises for decision is whether S.342 Cr. P.C., would apply to the trial of summons cases and whether the failure to question the accused under S.342 Cr. P.C., would vitiate the entire proceedings. There is conflict of judicial opinion as to whether S.342 would apply to the trial of summons cases. S. 342 is one of the general provisions regarding inquiries and trials and being a general provision, it must be applied to all cases, unless the special sections dealing with particular cases indicate that it is not intended to apply to them or unless the words of the section itself give such an indication. Looking at S.342 it is a condition that the questioning is to take place before the accused is called on for his defence. The calling on the accused for his defence has a definite meaning both in sessions and warrant cases under S.289 and 256, but when examining Chapter XX containing the provisions applying to summons cases, the expression is not used. The accused in a summons case does not "enter on his defence" but the Magistrate is bound "to hear the accused". The calling on the accused for his defence has a definite meaning both in sessions and warrant cases under S.289 and 256, but when examining Chapter XX containing the provisions applying to summons cases, the expression is not used. The accused in a summons case does not "enter on his defence" but the Magistrate is bound "to hear the accused". The proper interpretation to be put upon S.342 by reason of these words is that it is to apply only to those cases where under other sections of the Code the accused is to be called on for his defence. Chapter XX provides a complete and self-contained procedure for the hearing of summons oases. Under S.242 the accused is asked if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted. No formal charge need be framed and a formal plea of guilty or not guilty is hot taken. The accused is told the particulars of the offence of which he is accused, he is asked to show cause why he should not be convicted, if he admits the offence or fails to show sufficient cause, the Magistrate disposes of the case as provided under S.243. Otherwise the Magistrate must proceed to hear and determine the case under S.244 and 245. Under S.244 the Magistrate must hear the complainant and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution and also hear the accused and take all such evidence as he may produce in his defence. Under S.245 after taking this evidence and such further evidence as he may cause to be produced and examining the accused he must give his decision. It is difficult to see where in these sections a formal examination under S.342 is to come in. It would have to be read in somewhere in S.244. It is strange that, if S.342 was intended to be applied to summons cases, the legislature should not have said at what stage in the application of S.242, 244 and 245 this further formal examination is to take place. It may be that in summons case there is no objection to a Magistrate questioning the accused generally for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, but it is not obligatory. It may be that in summons case there is no objection to a Magistrate questioning the accused generally for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, but it is not obligatory. This is the view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case in Ponnuswamy Odayar v. Ramaswamy Thathan (I.L.R. 46 Mad. 758). This was followed in a later decision of a Full Bench of the Rangoon High Court in King-Emperor v. Nga La Gyi (ILR. 9 Rang. 506) and by a Division Bench of the Andhra High Court in a recent decision in Vidyanand v. Erramma (AIR. 1962 Andhra Pradesh 394). I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in these cases. For the reasons stated by me, I regret, I find myself unable to follow the decisions of some other High Courts taking a different view. 3. Even otherwise there is ample authority for the position that a failure to comply with the terms of S.342 is only an irregularity and will not vitiate the entire trial unless prejudice has been caused to the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy me that any prejudice has been caused. The conviction and sentence are confirmed and the revision petition is dismissed. Dismissed.