https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174746 A trial by a court of competent jurisdiction is not vitiated merely because the Special Court took cognizance without committal. Procedural irregularities in cognizance or committal do not justify a de novo trial unless the challenger shows actual prejudice and a failure of justice. Chapter XXXV of the Code, including the saving rule in Section 465, requires the superior court to test whether the defect caused concrete disadvantage before setting aside completed proceedings. In the absence of a timely objection and any demonstrated failure of justice, the trial should not be quashed or repeated; the matter must be decided on the existing record. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174746 A trial by a court of competent jurisdiction is not vitiated merely because the Special Court took cognizance without committal. Procedural irregularities in cognizance or committal do not justify a de novo trial unless the challenger shows actual prejudice and a failure of justice. Chapter XXXV of the Code, including the saving rule in Section 465, requires the superior court to test whether the defect caused concrete disadvantage before setting aside completed proceedings. In the absence of a timely objection and any demonstrated failure of justice, the trial should not be quashed or repeated; the matter must be decided on the existing record. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174746