Error Omission And Irregularity Essay

ANJU RUCHIKA EKKA

Section 465. Finding or sentences when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity

INTRODUCTION

During the trial proceedings a lot of errors, omissions and irregularities are found that may or may not be crucial for the case and the decree to be passed, but need to be looked into for the commencement of a fair trial. Such errors and omissions may help one party to get an opportunity to lead the trial against the other party. The legislature has come up with the section 465 that provides a direction as to see how errors or irregularities are to be dealt with in a trial proceeding.

RESEARCH QUESTION: HOW IT CAN BE DETERMINED WHETHER AN ERROR, OMISSION OR AN IRREGULARITY CAN REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT?

'A Court of competent jurisdiction'.- When there is a defect in the jurisdiction of a court, it cannot be cured under this section. Therefore, the section cannot cure the exercise of power not vested in the Magistrate while disposing of cases or doing something which is repugnant to the aim and object of a particular provisions of law. The Supreme court has explained this thing in a judgment as follows:

There is no substance in the contention that s. 465 is restricted to any findings, sentence or order passed by a" Court of competent jurisdiction" and that a Special court under the SC/ST Act which is essentially a Session Court would have remained incompetent until the case is committed to it. The expression "a court of competent jurisdiction" envisaged in s.465 is to denote a validly constituted Court conferred with jurisdiction to try the offence or offences. Such a court will not get denuded of its competence on account of any procedural lapse. Its competence would remain unaffected by the fact of non-complaince with the procedural requirement. The inability to take cognizance of an offence without a committal order does not mean that a duly constituted court became an incompetent court for all purposes. If an objection was raised in the court at the earliest occasion on the ground the case should have been committed by a Magistrate, the same specified court had to exercise a jurisdiction either for sending the records to a Magistrate for adopting committal proceedings

calls under section 397, for proceedings; or

(viii). revises, an order passed under section 446, his proceedings shall be void.

4. No miscarriage of justice: When the cognizance of an offence is taken under a wrong section of the Act, but the conviction is under the correct section by a competent Court it was held that no prejudice is caused to the party and the sentence could not be reversed. Where the appellant did not show what prejudice was caused to him by the non-compliance, if any of the various provisions of the Act (Narcotic Drug) in the matter of sampling etc. there could not be mis-carriage of justice. The appellant could not be permitted to take any advantage out of the illusory non-compliance of the provisions of the Act.

Section 465(2) is not a carte blanche for rendering all trials vitiated on the ground of irregularity of sanction if objection thereto was raised at the first instance itself. This sub-section only says that the "court shall have regard to the fact" that objection has been raised at the earliest state in the proceedings. It is only one of the considerations to be weighed. For that very reason the irregularity in the sanction would spoil the prosecution and transmute the proceedings into a void