Chapter XXXV
Section 460 CrPC: Irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings
New Law Update (2024)
Section 493 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
If any Magistrate not being empowered by law in this behalf,
(a) issues a search-warrant under section 94;
(b) orders, under section 155, the police to investigate an offence;
(c) holds an inquest under section 176;
(d) issues process under section 187, for the apprehension of a person within his local jurisdiction who has committed an offence outside the limits of such jurisdiction;
(e) takes cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 190;
(f) makes over a case under sub-section (2) of section 192;
(g) tenders a pardon under section 306;
(h) recalls a case and tries it himself under section 410; or
(i) sells property under section 458 or section 459,
erroneously in good faith does that thing, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground of his not being so empowered.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 460 (Main Principle)
This section is crucial as it enumerates specific procedural irregularities committed by a Magistrate in good faith that do not vitiate or invalidate the entire legal proceedings. It ensures that proceedings are not set aside merely because a Magistrate, acting under an erroneous but bona fide belief of having the power, performed certain acts such as issuing a search warrant, ordering an investigation, or taking cognizance of an offence.
Landmark Judgements
State of U.P. v. Lakshmi Brahman and Anr. (1983):
This landmark judgment clarified the crucial distinction between mere ‘irregularities’ curable under Section 460 CrPC and ‘illegalities’ which are not. The Supreme Court held that Section 460 applies only to specific procedural errors committed in good faith by a Magistrate who, though not specifically empowered for that particular act, generally possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter. It does not cure fundamental defects or a complete lack of inherent jurisdiction.
Raja Ram Verma v. State of U.P. (1994):
The Supreme Court re-emphasized the ‘good faith’ requirement of Section 460. It was held that the act must be performed erroneously, meaning the Magistrate genuinely believed they were empowered to perform it, even if mistaken. The protection of Section 460 would not extend to acts done with mala fide intent or where the Magistrate knowingly usurped a power they did not possess.