Mandatory criminal procedure safeguards for a company accused cannot be bypassed; failure to state charges and examine the accused vitiates trial.

Mandatory compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code requirements of stating the particulars of the offence and examining the accused was treated as a fundamental safeguard in criminal trial procedure. In the case of a company appearing through an authorised representative, those protections had to be observed through that representative and were not dispensed with by the company's juridical status. The record showed that the charge was not properly stated and no effective examination was conducted. The omission was not cured by the saving provision for irregularities, and the non-compliance vitiated the trial, leading to setting aside of the conviction and sentence and remittal for retrial de novo.

---

---

Issues: Whether the trial was vitiated by the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of stating the particulars of the offence to the accused and examining the accused under the Criminal Procedure Code, and whether such defects could be cured under the saving provision for irregularities.

Analysis: The company, being a juridical person, could not be personally explained the charge or personally examined in the ordinary sense, but the Court held that this did not dispense with the statutory safeguards. If the company appeared through an authorised representative or agent, the provisions requiring the charge to be stated and the accused to be questioned had to be observed through that representative. The record showed that neither the particulars of the offence were properly stated nor any effective examination under the Code was conducted. The Court further held that the omission to comply with these provisions was not cured by the general provision relating to irregularities, since the requirement to hear the accused's defence was treated as a fundamental safeguard in criminal trial procedure.

Conclusion: The non-compliance with the mandatory procedural provisions vitiated the trial, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted for retrial de novo.

---