TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds curable irregularity principle in criminal proceedings despite non-compliance</h1> <h3>Abdullah Bhat Versus Ghulam Mohd.</h3> Abdullah Bhat Versus Ghulam Mohd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the non-compliance with Section 204 (1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) renders subsequent proceedings null and void or is a curable irregularity.2. Whether prejudice to the accused should be considered in determining the effect of non-compliance with Section 204 (1-A) CrPC.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Non-Compliance with Section 204 (1-A) CrPCMajority Opinion:The majority held that non-compliance with Section 204 (1-A) CrPC, which mandates the filing of a list of prosecution witnesses before issuing a summons or warrant, does not cut at the root of jurisdiction and does not render subsequent proceedings void. They emphasized that the essence of the provision is to ensure a fair trial and not to introduce technicalities that could frustrate justice. The court opined that the violation should be assessed based on whether it substantially denies a fair trial or natural justice. If the violation is not vital and does not result in substantial prejudice to the accused, it is considered a curable irregularity under Section 537 CrPC.Supporting Case Law:The majority referred to the Supreme Court's decision in 1956CriLJ291, which emphasized that procedural laws are designed to further justice and not to frustrate it with technicalities. The court must determine if non-compliance amounts to a substantial denial of a fair trial.Application to the Case:In the present case, the complainant did not initially file a list of witnesses, but the list was later provided, and the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The court found that this did not result in substantial prejudice to the accused, thus considering the non-compliance as a curable irregularity.Dissenting Opinion:One judge dissented, arguing that Section 204 (1-A) CrPC is mandatory. The provision aims to inform the accused of the witnesses against him at the earliest stage, which is crucial for preparing a defense. Non-compliance with this provision should render the subsequent proceedings invalid unless the complainant is the only witness.Supporting Case Law:The dissent referred to AIR1958MP28 and Ram Narain v. Bishember Nath, emphasizing that the filing of the witness list is essential and non-compliance invalidates subsequent proceedings.Issue 2: Prejudice to the AccusedMajority Opinion:The majority held that the guiding principle in cases of non-compliance with procedural requirements should be whether any prejudice was caused to the accused. The court must assess if the accused had a fair opportunity to defend himself and if the omission resulted in a failure of justice. In the present case, the accused had advance information about the witnesses and was represented by a lawyer throughout the proceedings. No objection was raised at an early stage, indicating no substantial prejudice was caused.Supporting Case Law:The court referred to 1957CriLJ1320 and 1964CriLJ167, where the Supreme Court held that non-supply of certain documents did not affect the jurisdiction of the court but could vitiate the trial if prejudice was caused to the accused.Application to the Case:Given that the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and was represented by counsel, the court found no reasonable inference of prejudice. The omission to file the list of witnesses initially did not result in a failure of justice, making the non-compliance a curable irregularity.Dissenting Opinion:The dissenting judge argued that the omission to file the list of witnesses inherently causes prejudice to the accused, as it hampers the ability to prepare an effective defense. The provision is designed to protect the accused, and any action taken without compliance should be considered invalid.Supporting Case Law:The dissent cited the observations of Dua J. in Ram Narain v. Bishember Nath, emphasizing that the provisions of Section 204 (1-A) are mandatory and non-compliance vitiates subsequent proceedings.Conclusion:The majority concluded that non-compliance with Section 204 (1-A) CrPC is a curable irregularity, provided no substantial prejudice is caused to the accused. The court must consider whether the accused had a fair opportunity to defend himself and if the omission resulted in a failure of justice. The dissenting opinion, however, maintained that the provision is mandatory and non-compliance should invalidate subsequent proceedings. The revision petition was dismissed based on the majority view.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
