The objection taken is that the whole procedure is illegal in toto. The prosecution was initiated by the Forest Range Officer, Atur, and the accused was charged with grazing 50 goats in the Godamalai Reserve on 7th July, 1922. The Forest Range Officer was not examined on oath under Sect. 200, Criminal Procedure Code, and under the present amended Criminal Procedure Code there is no question that this is not required. It is said that this is an illegality and not an irregularity. It is also said that the Magistrate, had no cognizance of this case under Sect. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no doubt this is wrong; the terms of the section show that a Magistrate has cognizance before he examines the complainant under Sect. 200. That the omission to examine complainant is a mere irregularity is borne out by the decision in Queen Express v. Maru (I.L.R., 11 Mad., 443), where it was held that the omission to examine the Thasildar under Sect. 200 was a mere irregularity. The point is also taken, in In re Velu Nattan (I.L.R., 35 Mad., 606), but that is a question of dismissal under Sect. 20

3. As Ramesam, J., points out in Ramaswamy Iyengar, In re (16 L.W., 220), the person prejudiced by such an irregularity is the complainant and when the case ends in a conviction, he has no grievance and the accused cannot in general complain of the irregularity as the omission to take a sworn statement from complainant cannot prejudice the accused. The complainant is not examined and it must be a matter of evidence to be decided by the Court hearing the case, as to whether the evidence without that of the complainant is sufficient for a conviction. We think, this is a mere irregularity and that the accused has not been prejudiced by the omission under Sect. 537, Criminal Procedure Code and that this point must fail. Two other points raised before us were not taken in the revision petitions and must therefore fail. These Criminal Revision Petitions must be dismissed.