https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97033 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. en-us Wed, 10 Aug 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:13:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97033 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 10 Aug 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97033