J. M. PANCHAL, J. ( 1 ) * * * * ( 2 ) SUBMISSION that recording of joint statement of the accused under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has vitiated the trial and, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside, has no merit and cannot be accepted. It is true that where there are several accused in a case, it is incumbent upon the learned Judge to examine each of them separately and a joint statement of all the accused in a single paragraph is not authorised by the section. Section 313 contemplates individual statements of the accused and not joint statement, notwithstanding the fact that such questions are uniform. Where there are several accused, the case of each of them should be individually considered and each of them should be questioned with reference to particular position brought on by the evidence against him. Preparing a common questionnaire for all the accused persons in a joint trial and recording answers of all the accused to all the questions set out therein without bothering to consider if any question relates to any particular accused, would render examination under S. 313 deceptive. There is no manner of doubt that the practice of drawing up a common questionnaire against several accused in case of a joint trial is improper and cannot be upheld and, therefore, it will have to be held that the learned Judge committed irregularity in recording joint statement of accused under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, question which arises for consideration of the Court is whether recording of joint statement has caused any prejudice to the appellant ? Section 465 of the Code deals with the effect of error, omission or irregularity before or during the trial on finding of sentence recorded by the Court, and provides as under : "465. However, question which arises for consideration of the Court is whether recording of joint statement has caused any prejudice to the appellant ? Section 465 of the Code deals with the effect of error, omission or irregularity before or during the trial on finding of sentence recorded by the Court, and provides as under : "465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity :- (1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of , the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. " from a bare reading of S. 465, it becomes evident that error, omission or irregularity committed before or during trial would not be a sufficient ground to reverse or alter the finding, sentence or order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction if failure of has in fact not been occasioned thereby. Sub-S. (2) provides that in determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of , the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. We have gone through the joint statement recorded by the learned judge under S. 313 of the Code. There is no manner of doubt that all the circumstances appearing against the appellant were put to him so as to enable him to offer explanation to those circumstances. We have gone through the joint statement recorded by the learned judge under S. 313 of the Code. There is no manner of doubt that all the circumstances appearing against the appellant were put to him so as to enable him to offer explanation to those circumstances. The joint statement is recorded in such a manner that some question set out therein would relate to the appellant and the same are not related to another accused Kalidas. The learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to point out that recording of joint statement under S. 313 of the Code has occasioned a failure of. The fact that objection to recording of joint statement was not taken at the time when the statement was being recorded or was not assailed before the learned Judge at the time of arguments, is not in dispute. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that recording of joint statement has not occasioned any failure of. Therefore, the first contention raised on behalf of the appellant fails and is rejected. .