Failure to mark documents as exhibits is only a procedural irregularity unless it causes prejudice and failure of justice.

An omission to formally mark defence or prosecution documents as exhibits does not, by itself, vitiate a criminal trial. Where the accused did not object at trial, the documents were used in cross-examination and under Section 313 CrPC, and no prejudice or failure of justice was shown, the irregularity was treated as procedural only. A retrial or de novo trial remains an exceptional remedy and is not justified for a mere lapse in exhibit marking. The presumption arising from the admitted cheque signature also continued to operate, so the plea that the proceedings were vitiated was rejected and no retrial was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the failure to mark the documents produced by the complainant as exhibits vitiated the trial and justified retrial.

Analysis: The accused did not object to the production of the documents at the trial stage, and the documents were referred to during cross-examination and under questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The omission to mark them as exhibits was, at the highest, an error or irregularity. A retrial or de novo trial can be ordered only in exceptional cases where the irregularity has caused prejudice and occasioned failure of justice. No such prejudice or failure of justice was shown. The presumption arising from the admitted cheque signature also remained operative.

Conclusion: The plea that the proceedings stood vitiated was rejected, and no retrial was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: An omission to formally mark documents as exhibits does not vitiate a criminal trial unless the accused demonstrates resulting prejudice and failure of justice; retrial is an exceptional remedy and cannot be granted for a mere procedural irregularity.

---