Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Appellate Court also did not examine this case in the light of Section 464 Cr.P.C. Section 464 Cr.P.C.regulates the effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in the charge. It provides that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of CRIMINAL REVISION NO.376 OF 2010 :{ 11 }:

charges, unless, in the opinion of court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. The plea by the counsel for the petitioner is that the defect in framing the charges would not be curable under Sections 464 and 465 Cr.P.C. Reference is made to the case of Deep Chand Vs. State of Haryana, 1993 (3) RCR (Criminal) 293 in support. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kadiri Kunhammad Vs. The State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 661 has held that charge of criminal breach of trust framed in contravention to proviso to Sec.222(2) Cr.P.C.(now 212(2) Cr.P.C.) is merely an irregularity which can be cured both under Sec.225 Cr.P.C.(now 215 Cr.P.C.) and Section 537 Cr.P.C.(now Section 464 Cr.P.C.) when the accused is not prejudiced.

Appellate Court has not examined the case in terms of these provisions as well. No doubt, as per Section 464(2)(b) (old Section 537 Cr.P.C.), in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in a charge, a new trial can be directed but effect of doing so after 14 years was required to be considered while issuing any such direction. Besides, it was to be seen if any prejudice has been caused to the accused- petitioner. There is some substance in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer due to the defects in the charges as framed by the trial Court and if the petitioner has been made to face a trial on defective charge or charges, then it would be unfair at this stage to direct his retrial after more than 14 years. This plea certainly would require examination to see if it would be fair to order retrial at this stage.