Kamal Ghorui
The bench said that the omission on part of the trial judge was not such a ‘fatal’ defect as to vitiate the entire trial
NEW DELHI: It was a minor lapse by a trial judge of not affixing his signature to the order framing the charges, but it led to a washout of 17 years of trial proceedings, with the Allahabad HC ordering retrial despite the case having reached a conclusive state. Disagreeing with the high court, the Supreme Court has said criminal procedure is intended to advance the ends of justice and not thwart them over technicalities.A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said that the omission on the part of the trial judge was not such a “fatal” defect as to vitiate the entire trial and that the procedural irregularity is curable.In the 2007 murder case, which had nine accused, the trial court framed charges in 2009, but the order for the same remained unsigned owing to the absence of one of the accused. The trial in the case, however, went on smoothly for 15 years, and this issue was raised only at the fag end of proceedings in 2024, making the HC order a retrial.Referring to a constitution bench verdict, the bench said, “This court distinguished fundamental illegality and curable procedural irregularity. It was held that only those defects which go to the root of jurisdiction or occasion real prejudice can vitiate the proceedings, whereas defects of a lesser degree constitute irregularities requiring proof of failure of justice. The distinction between an illegality and an irregularity is thus well established...”Quashing the HC’s order, the court said, “Acceptance of such belated challenges founded on procedural irregularities would defeat the object of criminal procedure, which is to advance the cause of justice and not to frustrate it on technical grounds”. It also questioned the conduct of the accused in raising the issue at the fag end of the trial, that too after the demise of key eyewitnesses.It said the omission of a signature on the order did not render the proceedings invalid when the framing of charges was done, recorded, read over, and acted upon by the court and the parties. “The record affirmatively demonstrates that the accused had full knowledge of the accusations and effectively contested the prosecution’s case. The nature of cross-examination and the defence adopted leaves no manner of doubt that the accused were neither misled nor prejudiced,” the bench said.
