https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169266 Procedural irregularities in examining witnesses and recording statements do not vitiate a conviction absent material prejudice. A witness not examined by the Committing Magistrate could still be examined at trial under the Criminal Procedure Code, and any complaint that counsel rather than the court conducted the examination was a curable irregularity because the defence had notice and raised no timely objection. Prior committal statements could support the prosecution case, and where the witness admitted the earlier statement, contradiction rules did not require formal proof in the same way; cross-examination was treated as substantially compliant where the witness was fairly confronted. Alleged defects in recording or reading over the accused's statement also failed because no concrete prejudice was shown. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2015 18:03:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169266 Procedural irregularities in examining witnesses and recording statements do not vitiate a conviction absent material prejudice. A witness not examined by the Committing Magistrate could still be examined at trial under the Criminal Procedure Code, and any complaint that counsel rather than the court conducted the examination was a curable irregularity because the defence had notice and raised no timely objection. Prior committal statements could support the prosecution case, and where the witness admitted the earlier statement, contradiction rules did not require formal proof in the same way; cross-examination was treated as substantially compliant where the witness was fairly confronted. Alleged defects in recording or reading over the accused's statement also failed because no concrete prejudice was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Apr 1952 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169266