JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - The Petitioners assaulted opposite party No. 1 on 12.8.1965 at about 5 P.M. in the village with axe and lathis. The opposite party No. 1 was medically examined, and lodged first information report at Bhanjanagar police station on 13.8.1965 at 3 P.M. The informant was medically examined by the same doctor who had examined him before privately, and had granted a certificate (ext. 1). The certificate granted to the informant by the same doctor, on police requisition, is ext. 2. There is no difference between these two certificates as to the number and nature of the injuries found on opposite party No. 1, the informant. 2. The informant tiled a complaint before the S.D.M., Bhanjanagar, on 2.9.1965, upon which complaint case No. 49/65 was registered, and cognisance was taken against six persons including the four Petitioners. Subsequently, on 8-9-1965, the police submitted charge-sheet, and on the basis of this charge-sheet cognizance was taken against the Petitioners under Sections 323 and 324/34, Indian Penal Code. Cognizance had also been taken of the selfsame offences in the earlier complaint case. By order dated 15-11.1965 passed in G.R. Case No. 211 of 1965, the S.D.M. before whom both the cases were pending, clubbed the two cases together for convenience of trial and directed that the procedure, as laid down in Section 252, Code of Criminal Procedure shall be adopted as there were two more accused in the complaint case who had not been charge-sheeted in the police case. 3. It appears that both the complainant and the accused persons were represented by lawyers, and no objection appears to have been taken against this clubbing of the two cases, and the order deciding to adopt the procedure u/s 252, Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of the cases. Ultimately, the four Petitioners were convicted and the other two accused persons were acquitted. 4. Of the accused persons, Petitioner Bishnu Naik had also started a counter case against the complainant and a witness of his, p.w. 2, and another for which they were tried u/s 200, Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- each. The judgment of that case was filed on behalf of the defence during the trial of the Petitioners. 5. The complainant-opposite party No. 1 examined five witnesses. 5/- each. The judgment of that case was filed on behalf of the defence during the trial of the Petitioners. 5. The complainant-opposite party No. 1 examined five witnesses. The magistrate accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted Petitioner No. 1 u/s 324, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month more. The other Petitioners were convicted u/s 323/34 and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each in default to undergo R. I. for 15 days more. The charge u/s 324/34 against Petitioners 2 to 4 was held not to have been substantiated and they were acquitted of that charge. 6. On appeal, the Additional Sessions. Judge, Sri B. Misra, by his judgment dated 18-11-1968 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1968(g) (Criminal Appeal 79/67 GDC) upheld the conviction of the Petitioners, but reduced the sentence of Petitioner No. 1 to R.I. for two weeks and to a fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo R.I. for two weeks more. He also reduced the sentence for the other Petitioners to a fine of Re. 100/- in default to undergo R. I. for two weeks each. This revision is against this order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 7. The Additional Sessions Judge found p. ws. 2, 4, and 5 were either interested for the prosecution or inimically disposed towards the accused persons p.w. 2 was a co-accused with the complainant in the criminal case initiated by Petitioner No. 2 in which he was also convicted. p.w. 4 has been found to be the husband of the complainant?s father Sister and thus interested in the prosecution. p.w. 5 is the wife of the complainant. As regards p.w. 3, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found him to be disinterested. Notwithstanding his finding that the complainant had tried to develop his case against the Petitioners he has on a scrutiny of the testimony of p.w. 3, accepted the same and acted upon it. There is no bar to base a conviction on the sole testimony of one witness in a case where a number of witnesses have been examined. I do not-find anything irregular or illegal in it. 8. There is no bar to base a conviction on the sole testimony of one witness in a case where a number of witnesses have been examined. I do not-find anything irregular or illegal in it. 8. The only point of law raised is that the clubbing of the complaint-case and the G.R. case and adopting the procedure laid down u/s 252, Code of Criminal Procedure in the trial is illegal and that discarding the procedure of trial as laid down u/s 251-A. Code of Criminal Procedure has prejudiced the Petitioners seriously. 9. It is true that the case reported in Sudhakar Das v. Dayanidhi Mohanty and Anr. 31 C.L.T. 941, which lays down that where two parallel cases have been instituted, one on the basis of submission of charge-sheet by the police and the other on the basis of a complaint filed by the informant, the complaint-case should merge in the G.R. case and lose its identity, and the police case alone would retain its identity. That is true where the number of accused persons both in the police case and in the complaint case is the same. But in the present case two more accused persons were summoned in the complaint-case, than the number of accused persons charge-sheeted in the police case. Normally therefore, the complaint case, except when the accused persons, and the offence are the same, cannot, by any theory be allowed to merge in the police case having that in view the Magistrate decided to adopt the procedure u/s 252, Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint-case being earlier in point of time, cannot lose its identity merely by reason of amalgamation order passed by the Magistrate. So, the net result is that the warrant procedure which should have been adopted in the police case, was given up, and the procedure as laid down u/s 252, Code of Criminal Procedure, was adopted in its place. The four Petitioners, therefore, lost some advantage which Section 251-A, Code of Criminal Procedure confers upon them, viz. they were not put in possession of all the documents on which the prosecution could rely thereby giving them a complete picture of the case against them before they embarked upon their defence. The four Petitioners, therefore, lost some advantage which Section 251-A, Code of Criminal Procedure confers upon them, viz. they were not put in possession of all the documents on which the prosecution could rely thereby giving them a complete picture of the case against them before they embarked upon their defence. But in this case, there was no document in the hands of the police which could have been given to the accused in advance before the trial opened as required u/s 252-A and so the Petitioners lost no advantage in the particular facts of the case. Though theoretically Section 251-A was more advantageous to the Petitioners, adoption of the procedure u/s 252; Code of Criminal Procedure did not, in effect, cause any prejudice. The accused persons were represented by lawyers, and if they ready felt prejudiced by adoption of the procedure u/s 252. Code of Criminal Procedure, it was open to them to move this Court, while the matter was pending in the trial Court, to stay further progress of the trial and compel the Magistrate to adopt the procedure provided for cases instituted upon police report. The absence of any objection by the Petitioners in the Court of the Magistrate, who passed the order of clubbing, and for adoption of complaint case procedure in their presence, is a material circumstance which weighs heavily against the Petitioners in urging that they have been prejudiced in their trial by reason of adoption of a different procedure than the one which the Court was bound to follow. Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure clearly provides that no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of any error, omission, or irregularity in the proceedings during trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless such error, omission, or irregularity has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. As already indicated above, in my opinion, the wrong procedure followed by the Magistrate in the trial did not in fact, cause any prejudice which resulted in failure of justice in this case. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, except that the sentence of Petitioner No. 1 is reduced to the period already undergone by him. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, except that the sentence of Petitioner No. 1 is reduced to the period already undergone by him. With this modification in the sentence of Petitioner only the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed