JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the accused convict against his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He is accused of pouring kerosine oil on one Smt. Bholi Devi and setting her ablaze on 17.5.1999 as a consequence where of she died on 18.5.1999. The defence of the accused is that Sidhu alias Mohinder, husband of the deceased, is a notorious criminal and deals in the distillation and sale of illicit liquor and the police officials of Police Post, Nagrota Sudan, where the report was lodged, are helping Sidhu in his work of illicit distillation whereas the accused had been objected to it. Therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the case. 2. During the course of hearing of this appeal when the learned Counsel for the appellant was reading statement of Head Constable Parma Nand (PW-15), who partially investigated the case, a doubt arose about the correct recording of the English version of his statement to the following effect: "It is incorrect to suggest that I am also getting HAFTA from PW Mohinder Singh. It is incorrect that the case which I investigated against him in connection with illicit liquor were framed against him so that it could be shown that we are condoning the illicit distillation in which he indulges." 3. To find out whether the aforesaid English translation of the statement of the witness is correct or not we perused Hindi version of his statement and found that English translation of his statement is not correct. In these circumstances, to ensure that there may not be other mistakes in the English translation we compared the English translation of the statements with the Hindi version and found some discrepancies in such translation. 4. While dealing with such a situation one of us (R.L. Khurana, J.) in Vijander Singh v. State of H.R, 1999 (2) Shim. L.C. 171, and the other (M.R. Verma, J.) in Harish Kumar and others v. State of H.R, 2001 (1) Shim. L.C. 281, had held that for all the Subordinate Courts in the State of Himachal Pradesh the language of the Court is Hindi in Devnagri script, therefore, in case of variance in the vernacular version in which the witness has made j the statement and which is read over to him and acknowledged by him j has to be given primacy over the English version. We, therefore, wanted to take into account the Hindi version but it was found that the statements of the witnesses which have been recorded in Hindi have not been signed by the learned trial Judge nor do they bear the certificates to the effect that such statements were read over to the concerned witnesses and were acknowledged by them. It was also noticed that the trial Court has not | maintained, the Hindi version of the statement of the accused under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 thereafter referred to as the new Code). It is not in dispute that but for the two Medical Officers ^PW- 8 and PW-9) all other witnesses and the accused had made their statements, in Hindi, the official language of the trial court. 5. Against the aforesaid background, the question arose as to what is the effect of the evidence/vernacular version of the statements having remained unsigned by the learned trial Judge. 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State on the aforesaid question. 7. The provisions of Sections 272 to 283 of the new Code deal with the mode of taking and recording prosecution evidence and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the new Code. The relevant Sections for the determination of the present question are Sections 272, 276, 277, 278 and 281 of the new Code which provide the manner of recording evidence and statement of the accused in a sessions trial. Section 272 empowers the State Government to determine the language of the Courts in the State other than the High Court. Section 276 deals with the recording of evidence in a trial before a Court of Session and provides that in all trials before a Court of Session, the evidence of each witness shall be taken down in writing by the presiding Judge or on his dictation in the open Court under his direction and superintendence and the evidence so taken down shall be signed by the presiding Judge and shall form part of the record. Section 277 of the new Code provides that if the witness gives evidence in the language of the Court it shall be taken down in that language and if he gives evidence in any other language it may be taken down, if practicable, in that language, otherwise a true translation of the evidence in the language of the Court shall be prepared and signed by the presiding Judge and shall form part of the record. Section 278 of the new Code provides that when the evidence of the witness is complete it shall be read over to the witness and if the witness denies the correctness of any part of the evidence when read over to him it may be corrected or instead of correcting the evidence a memorandum thereon of the objection raised by the witness be made and the necessary remarks be added thereto. Section 281 of the new Code provides that every question put to the accused and every answer given by him in his statement under Section 313 of the new Code shall be recorded in full by the presiding Judge or under his direction and superintendence by an officer of the Court appointed in this behalf and such record shall, if practicable, be in the language in which the accused is examined or in the alternative in the language of the Court and such record shall be shown or read over to the accused and shall be signed by the accused and the presiding Judge, who shall certify under his own hand that the examination was taken in his presence and hearing and contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. It is, thus, evident that object of these provisions is to maintain an accurate and authentic record of the evidence and statement of the accused. 8. As already stated hereinabove, the language of the Subordinate Courts in Himachal Pradesh is Hindi. There is no dispute that the witnesses (other than PW-8 and PW-9) and the accused made th^ir statements in Hindi. However, the statements of the witnesses, as placed on the record of the Hindi version, are not signed by the learned trial Judge nor do they bear the certificate that these were read over to and acknowledged by the respective witnesses. However, the statements of the witnesses, as placed on the record of the Hindi version, are not signed by the learned trial Judge nor do they bear the certificate that these were read over to and acknowledged by the respective witnesses. In so far as the Hindi record of the statement of the accused is concerned, that is not maintained at all. Thus, evidently there had been non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 276, 277, 278 and 281 of the new Code. 9. In Janki Prasad and others v. Emperor, 1918 Vol. XLIII Indian Cases 827, Patna High Court, while dealing with the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 356 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (hereafter referred to as the old Code) which in substance are similar to the provisions of Section 276 of the new Code held as under: "The direction in Section 356 appears to me to be mandatory as also the directions in Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The non compliance with the requirements of this section would, therefore, not only be an irregularity but an illegality which would vitiate the trial. This was the view taken in the case of Khettromony Dasi v. Sreenath Sircar (1) Queen-Empress v. Bramajit (2) Jyotish Chandra Mukerjee v. Emperor (3) and Sadananda Mandal v. Krista Mandal (4). The principal of the last ruling, though under Section 360, applies to a violation of Section 356. Even if it was an irregularity, it was so grave and material that it cannot be cured by Section 537. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and direct that the case be retried according to law." 10. In Jyotish Chandra Mukerjee and another v. Emperor, 1909 Vol. 10 The Criminal Law Journal 581, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court while dealing with the effect of lapse of reading over the statement to the witness, as required under Section 360 of the old Code (new Section 278 of the new Code) held as under : "There is one further point to which I would draw attention and it is a matter of procedure in regard to the reading over of depositions as required by Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the course of the trial, Mr. In the course of the trial, Mr. Morton on behalf of the Crown asked that the evidence given by a witness should be read over to him in the presence of the accused or his pleader as provided by Section 360. To this the learned Judge replied that it would involve a great waste of time. He then said "the section seems to me directory and not obligatory. If the witness detects a mistake, he can come back and say so. This is the universal practice in Sessions Courts, my experience extending to about six such Courts. "Optima est legum interpres consuetudo." I do not agree with this view, for the custom indicated by the learned Judge cannot alter the plain words of the Act. Mr. Mortons application was right, and if, as has been represented to us, that section is disregarded in practice, then I have no hesitation in saying that the practice is erroneous. It has not interfered with our disposal of this case, because we are able to hold, in the special circumstances, that the omission is not fatal. But such a departure from the terms of the Criminal Procedure Code might lead to considerable embarrassment, and place a serious impediment in the proper administration of justice; for there are cases in which it has been held that for the purposes of a prosecution on the ground of perjury, depositions to which the procedure laid down in Section 360 has not been applied, cannot be properly used. I, therefore, trust that, if the practice exists, it will be discontinued in deference to the clear direction of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code." 11. In Natho Khan and another v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Sind 145, while dealing with the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 356 of the old Code, which applied to the Magisterial Courts as well as to the Sessions Court and in substance are identical to Section 276 of the new Code, it was held as under : "Inquiries under Chapter 12 are governed by Section 356, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate is bound to record evidence in the manner prescribed by that section. It has been held in Sadananda Mandal v. Krishna Mandal (1) and elsewhere that the provisions of this section are imperative. The Magistrate is bound to record evidence in the manner prescribed by that section. It has been held in Sadananda Mandal v. Krishna Mandal (1) and elsewhere that the provisions of this section are imperative. Where the Magistrate omitted to record evidence in the mode prescribed by this section, it was held there was a material error sufficient to set aside the proceedings. Now there is no doubt that proceedings under Section 145 of the Code are enquiries under Chapter 12. It is clear therefore that under Section 356(1) evidence of each witness should have been taken down in writing in the vernacular by the Magistrate himself or in his presence and hearing and under his personal direction. This record should have been signed by him. Now in the present case the learned Magistrate has kept a record of the evidence in English only. He has in fact recorded the evidence in so much that his memorandum has very much the appearance of a verbatim record. Nevertheless this record is in English and not in the vernacular. It must therefore be conceded that there has been no complete compliance with the requirements of Section 356. This concession is in fact made by the learned public prosecutor who appears to support the order. He argues however that the bare fact of such an omission as has occurred in the present case unaccompanied by any probable suggestion of any failure of justice thereby occasioned is not enough to warrant the quashing of the order which can be supported by Section 537. The provisions of Section 537 are these. "No order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or in revision on account of any error, omission or irregualrity unless such error, omission or irregularity has in fact occasioned a failure of justice" and an explanation is appended which says: In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings. Now since the decision of the Privy Council in Abdul Rahman v. Emperor (2), it is no longer open to the Cdurts in India to hold that a trial is vitiated by the mere fact that an imperative statutofy rule of procedure has been broken. Now since the decision of the Privy Council in Abdul Rahman v. Emperor (2), it is no longer open to the Cdurts in India to hold that a trial is vitiated by the mere fact that an imperative statutofy rule of procedure has been broken. The Court must also consider whether such failure has in fact occasioned 3 failure of justice." 12. A view, similar to the one taken in Natho Khans case (supra), had been taken in Sankatha Misir v. Bishzuanath and others, AIR 1931 Allahabad 2; Re. Raju Shettxj, AIR 1960 Mysore 48 and Chhotu v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1967 Gujarat 115. 13. In L.D. Healy v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1969 (1) SCC 149, two witnesses were examined for the prosecution before one Special Judge and the record of the evidence was made in Hindi and an English memorandum of evidence was also maintained. The statements were read over to the witnesses and were signed by them in acknowledgement of their correctness. But the Special Judge, before whom the statements were made, died before he could append his signatures to the statements. His successor recalled the said witnesses and their evidence previously recorded was read over to them and they confirmed its correctness. The successor Special Judge also offered opportunity to the counsel for the accused to cross examine the witnesses but the offer was declined without objection to the reading of the evidence to the witnesses and no request for re-examining them was made. The Special Judge then appended his signatures to the record of the statements and to the English memorandum of evidence. There was no suggestion of injsutice actual or possible arising from the failure to comply with the statute. Against this background, the Honble Apex Court held as under : "Section 356 deals with the mode of recording evidence. The object of the section is to maintain a correct record of the testimony of the witnesses. The section occurs in Chapter XXV of the Code, and deals with the mode of taking and recording evidence in inquiries and trials. Against this background, the Honble Apex Court held as under : "Section 356 deals with the mode of recording evidence. The object of the section is to maintain a correct record of the testimony of the witnesses. The section occurs in Chapter XXV of the Code, and deals with the mode of taking and recording evidence in inquiries and trials. To ensure a fair trial it is provided that the evidence shall be recorded in the presence of the accused, or where his presence is dispensed with in the presence of his lawyer (353); in cases tried before the Court of Sessions or Magistrates other than presidency Magistrates, the evidence shall be taken down in writing in the language of the Court either in his own hand by the Presiding Officer or under his direction in open Court, or in his presence and hearing and under his personal supervision, and shall be signed by him (Section 356); the evidence shall after it is completed be read over to each witness, in the presence of the accused or his lawyer, and it may, if necessary, be corrected [Section 360 (1)] if the evidence is taken down in a language different from the, language in which it is given, and the witness does not understand the language in which it is taken down, it shall be interpreted to him [Section 360 (3)]; if the accused does not understand the language in which the evidence is given, it shall be interpreted in the language understood by him; and the statement of the accused shall be recorded in the form of questions and answers [Section 364 (1)]; whereas the evidence of witnesses shall unless otherwise directed be taken in narrative form. Compliance with the provisions is insisted upon in the larger interest of justice, but every departure from the strict letter of the law will not affect the validity of the trial. Compliance with the provisions is insisted upon in the larger interest of justice, but every departure from the strict letter of the law will not affect the validity of the trial. The object of the provisions being to ensure that a correct record is maintained of what is said in Court by witnesses, so that it may be available at a later stage of the trial and in appeal, if the Court is satisfied that in a given case the record notwithstanding any departure from the provisions is correct, the irregularity may be ignored if no injsutice has resulted there from/ It was further held as under : "There was irregularity in maintaining the record of the evidence at the trial, because the evidence was recorded before one Judge and another Judge subscribed his signature to the record of that evidence. There was, therefore, no strict compliance with the provisions of Section 356(1), Code of Criminal Procedure.But no ground for holding that the trial is vitiated is made out merely because instead of the Judge who heard the evidence, his successor had signed the record. In Abdul Rahman v. King Emperor, LR 54 IA 96, at the trial of a person accused of a charge for abetment of foregery the deposition of witnesses were read over to them while the case otherwise proceeded and the evidence of some other witnesses was handed over to them to read to themselves. There was violation of Section 360, Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided that deposition of each witness should be read over to him in the presence of the accused or his pleader. An objection was raised as to the validity of the order of conviction on the ground that the requirements of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with. No inaccuracy in the deposition was suggested, but only failure to comply with the strict requirements of Section 360 was made the ground on which the trial was contended to tte vitiated. The Judicial Committee observed that there had been no actual or possible failure of justice. No inaccuracy in the deposition was suggested, but only failure to comply with the strict requirements of Section 360 was made the ground on which the trial was contended to tte vitiated. The Judicial Committee observed that there had been no actual or possible failure of justice. According to the Judicial Committee reading over of the depositions of the witnesses while the case was otherwise proceeding was not a violation of Section 360 of the Code, and that giving of depositions to witnesses to read to themselves was rightly treated by the High Court as an irregularity curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to record the evidence of witnesses J.K. Mehta and V.P. Ghaturvedi again in the presence and under the superintendence of the Judge may be a regretable irregularity but it does not vitiate the trial." 14. In view of the decisions referred to h^reinabove, the settled position in law as at present appears that the lapses of not recording of the statements of the witnesses in the language in which the statements are made and non-signing thereof by the presiding Judge will be an irregularity which may be ingonrec Land will not vitiate the trial and the lapse(s) is curable under Section 46!?of the new Code unless injustice has resulted there from. 15. In view of the frame of Sections 276, 277 and 278 of the new Code, the same principle shall govern the lapse in maintaining the record of examination of the accused. In the case in hand as pointed out earlier there had been non-compliance of the relevant provisions in maintaining the Hindi record of the. evidence and statement of the accused and this cannot Jie read as lawfully recorded evidence. However, there is no such lapse in maintaining the English record which is duly maintained in accordance with law and there is no such lapse in maintaining this record which may have material bearing on the appreciation of evidence and thereby prejudice the parties and the interest of justice. It has merely typographical errors, insignificant and negligible in nature. However, there is no such lapse in maintaining the English record which is duly maintained in accordance with law and there is no such lapse in maintaining this record which may have material bearing on the appreciation of evidence and thereby prejudice the parties and the interest of justice. It has merely typographical errors, insignificant and negligible in nature. Otherwise there is due compliance of the relevant provisions of law in maintaining the English record of the evidence and the statement of the accused which are certified to have been read over to and acknowledged by the witnesses and the accused, have been signed by them and the learned presiding Judge. We are, thus, oi the considered view that the English record can be looked into and relied upon for the purpose of disposal of the appeal by ignoring the Hindi record which has not been maintained in accordance with law as such a course is not going to cause any prejudice to the parties and the interest of justice. The question is decided accordingly. 16. The appeal to be heard on merits.