R. P. Khosla ( 1 ) THIS revision petition must fail on the short ground that no prejudice has been shown to have acrued to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE objection entered was that mandatory provisions of section 204 (1 A) had not been complied with and, therefore, the proceedings are vitiated. Section 204 (IA) reads : "204 (1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be one in which, according to the fourth column of the second schedule, a summons should issue in the first instance, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused. If the case appears to be one in which, according to that column, a warrant should issue in the first instance, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit. a summons, for causing: the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has not jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction. (1a) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed. " ( 3 ) IT is well known that unless the mandatory provisions have caused some prejudice the proceedings are not invalidated. The learned Judge, in the case cited by the learned counsel. Ram Narain v. Bishamber Nath pointedly held : "the violation of the directory provisions of law usually carries no invalidating consequences unless some prejudice has resulted, ( 4 ) I find that prior to the proceedings initiated the list of the prose cution witnesses had been supplied while the accused summoned was present before the Court. The objection of the petitioner, in the circumstances, is merely of form and not of substance. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.