https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295076 Non-filing of the prosecution witness list before issuance of process under Section 204(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as a procedural safeguard, not a jurisdictional condition that automatically voids the proceedings. The controlling question was whether the omission caused a failure of justice or substantial prejudice; applying the saving principle in Section 537, the majority held the defect curable unless prejudice is shown. On the facts, the accused received the list after appearance, were represented by counsel, cross-examined the witnesses, and raised no timely objection, so no prejudice was proved. A dissent took the view that prior filing was mandatory and non-compliance was fatal. en-us Mon, 25 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 May 2021 11:39:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295076 Non-filing of the prosecution witness list before issuance of process under Section 204(1-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as a procedural safeguard, not a jurisdictional condition that automatically voids the proceedings. The controlling question was whether the omission caused a failure of justice or substantial prejudice; applying the saving principle in Section 537, the majority held the defect curable unless prejudice is shown. On the facts, the accused received the list after appearance, were represented by counsel, cross-examined the witnesses, and raised no timely objection, so no prejudice was proved. A dissent took the view that prior filing was mandatory and non-compliance was fatal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295076