The omission to frame a charge, the absence of a charge, or an error in the
charge itself cannot vitiate the trial. The apex court, in
State v.
Thakkidiram (AIR 1998 SC 2702), explained the underlying principle embodied
in subsection (1) of section 464.
Subsection (1) of section 464 of the CrPC (1973) expressly provides that no
finding, sentence, or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed
invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or due to any error,
omission, or irregularities in the charge, including any misjoinder of charges.
However, if, in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation, or revision, a
failure of justice has indeed occurred, then such a finding, sentence, or order
may be considered invalid.
Section 465 of the code is also relevant for our purpose. It lays down that no
finding, sentence, or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be
reversed or modified by a court of appeal, confirmation, or revision solely due
to any error, omission, or irregularities in the proceedings unless, in the
opinion of the court, a failure of justice has indeed occurred.
Furthermore, section 465 emphasizes that in determining whether any error,
omission, or irregularities in any proceeding under this Code has occasioned a
failure of justice, the courts should consider whether the objection could and
should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.
Not framing a charge would not vitiate the conviction if no prejudice is caused
to the accused. The trial should be fair to the accused, fair to the State, and
fair to the vast mass of people for whose protection penal laws are made and
administered. The Criminal Procedure Code is a procedural law designed to
further the ends of justice, rather than frustrate them through the introduction
of endless technicalities.
Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email:
[email protected], Ph No: +9051244073
Please Drop Your Comments