Competent jurisdiction protects a conviction from being set aside for mere trial-allocation irregularity without proof of failure of justice.

A conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be annulled for a mere irregularity in the allocation or conduct of a sessions trial unless it has caused failure of justice. Here, the trial court had inherent jurisdiction, and the objection concerned only the manner in which the case was made over within the sessions division after trial had begun. Because no prejudice or failure of justice was pleaded or shown, the procedural defect was curable and did not vitiate the conviction. The High Court was therefore wrong to set aside the conviction on that technical ground, and its judgment and remand were set aside for disposal on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transfer and trial of the sessions case by the Additional Sessions Judge suffered from such procedural irregularity as to vitiate the conviction in the absence of any plea or proof of prejudice or failure of justice.

Analysis: The case was within a sessions division in which all the presiding judges were competent to try sessions matters, and the record disclosed no lack of inherent jurisdiction in the trial court. The objection raised by the High Court related only to the manner in which the case was made over or allotted within the sessions division after the trial had commenced. Such an objection, even if treated as an irregularity, fell within the protective scope of the provisions governing curable defects and proceedings in a wrong place. The governing principle is that a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction is not to be reversed for an error, omission, or irregularity unless it has occasioned a failure of justice, and no such prejudice was pleaded or shown.

Conclusion: The High Court's view that the conviction was vitiated by the alleged procedural defect was incorrect; the conviction could not be set aside on that technical ground in the absence of failure of justice.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of the High Court and the remand ordered by it were set aside, and the matters were sent back for disposal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction passed by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be annulled for a mere procedural irregularity in allocation or trial arrangement unless the irregularity has caused a failure of justice.

---