Oldfield, J.:— The offence charged under s. 211, Indian Penal Code, has been clearly proved against the prisoners; but it is urged that the convictions should be set aside, inasmuch as they had no opportunity of proving the complaint they brought in the Magistrate's Court and which led to their committal and trial.
I find that the Magistrate examined them in respect of their complaint, and under ss. 146 and 147, Criminal Procedure Code, after directing an inquiry by the police, dismissed the complaint; and under s. 471, after making a preliminary inquiry, committed the accused for trial to the Sessions on charges of an offence under s. 211, Indian Penal Code. There is nothing illegal in the procedure of the Magistrate, and there is nothing in the law which requires that a complainant shall have an opportunity of substantiating his complaint, by being allowed to produce evidence before the Magistrate, before the latter can take steps against him under s. 471, Criminal Procedure Code. The commitment and trial are not therefore open to objection or liable to be set aside on the ground of illegality or irregularity. Even assuming the course taken by the Magistrate to have been irregular, it must be shown that the accused have been prejudiced thereby in their defence, before the conviction can be set aside, but nothing of the sort has been shown. They had full opportunity for proving the truth of their original complaint when put on their trial in the Sessions Court, and the fact that they had no opportunity in the Magistrate's Court to produce evidence in proof of their complaint in no way interfered with their proving it at the trial. In this view I am supported by the decision of this Court in Empress v. Abul Hasan (1); and The Queen v. Subbanna Gaundan (2).