Committal irregularity does not by itself vitiate conviction absent proof of prejudice or failure of justice.

Non-compliance with Section 193 of the Code does not automatically invalidate a conviction where the Special Judge is otherwise competent to try the offence. The Supreme Court examined conflicting views on direct cognizance without committal and held that, under the present Code, omission of the committal stage is a procedural irregularity rather than a jurisdictional defect. Applying Section 465, reversal requires proof of actual prejudice or failure of justice, and a conviction will not be set aside on that ground alone. Earlier contrary decisions were treated as per incuriam for not considering the binding precedent in Bhooraji.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction is vitiated merely because the Special Judge took cognizance directly without committal as required by Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The prior line of authority holding that direct cognizance by the Special Judge is impermissible was examined against the contrary view that procedural irregularity does not by itself nullify a conviction unless it has caused failure of justice. The Court held that the Special Court under the Act is a Court of Session, but under the present Code the committal stage is restricted and the omission to commit does not, by itself, make the trial unfair or the court incompetent. Applying Section 465 of the Code, the Court held that reversal of conviction requires a showing of actual prejudice or failure of justice, which was not established. The contrary decisions were held to be per incuriam for not noticing the binding precedent in Bhooraji.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with Section 193 of the Code does not automatically vitiate the trial or require retrial, and conviction cannot be set aside on that ground alone absent proof of failure of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural illegality in committal does not invalidate a conviction by a court otherwise competent to try the offence unless the accused demonstrates actual failure of justice or prejudice.

---