Supply of police documents to the accused is a curable irregularity unless actual prejudice is shown.

Non-compliance with procedural duties to furnish police papers and supply documents at the start of inquiry did not automatically vitiate committal proceedings or the trial. The Court treated the breach as a curable irregularity because the Code provisions were aimed at enabling an effective defence, and the consequence of omission depended on whether the accused suffered prejudice. Where the trial remained substantially in accordance with the Code and no prejudice was shown, section 537 cured the defect. On the facts, no prejudice was established, so the proceedings and conviction were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the requirements of furnishing documents under section 173(4) and ensuring supply of documents at the commencement of inquiry under section 207A(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiated the committal proceedings and the trial, or whether the omission was a curable irregularity in the absence of prejudice.

Analysis: The provisions were enacted to simplify commitment proceedings and to secure to the accused the material needed for an effective defence. The use of the word "shall" in both provisions did not, by itself, make the provisions mandatory in the sense that every breach would nullify the proceedings. The Court held that the statutory duty of the police and the Magistrate was important, but the consequence of non-compliance depended on whether the accused had been prejudiced. The Court applied the settled distinction between a trial conducted in a manner fundamentally different from the Code and a trial substantially in accordance with the Code where only an irregularity occurred. In the latter situation, section 537 cured the defect unless prejudice was shown. As no prejudice was established on the facts, the omission did not affect the validity of the trial.

Conclusion: The non-compliance did not vitiate the proceedings or the trial, and the irregularity was curable in the absence of prejudice.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained because the procedural omission under the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as a curable irregularity rather than a fatal illegality.

Ratio Decidendi: A breach of procedural provisions requiring supply of police papers to the accused does not automatically nullify the committal proceedings or the trial; it is curable unless the accused shows prejudice.

---