Chapter XXXV
Section 461 CrPC: Irregularities which vitiate proceedings
New Law Update (2024)
Section 523 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) attaches and sells property under section 83;
(2) issues a search-warrant for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of a postal or telegraph authority;
(3) demands security to keep the peace;
(4) demands security for good behaviour;
(5) discharges a person lawfully bound to be of good behaviour;
(6) cancels a bond to keep the peace;
(7) makes an order for maintenance;
(8) makes an order under section 133 as to a local nuisance;
(9) prohibits, under section 143, the repetition or continuance of a public nuisance;
(10) makes an order under Part C or Part D of Chapter X;
(11) takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of section 190;
(12) tries an offender;
(13) tries an offender summarily;
(14) passes a sentence, under section 325, on proceedings recorded by another Magistrate;
(15) decides an appeal;
(16) calls, under section 397, for proceedings; or
(17) revises an order passed under section 446, his proceedings shall be void.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 461(11): Taking Cognizance of an Offence
If a Magistrate who is not legally empowered takes official notice of an offence (i.e., takes cognizance), any proceedings initiated based on that action are automatically deemed void.
Section 461(12) & (13): Trying an Offender
Should a Magistrate conduct a trial of an offender, whether through a regular process or summarily, without having the legal authority to do so, the entire trial proceedings are rendered void and legally ineffective.
Landmark Judgements
Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, AIR 1962 Cal 250:
This High Court judgment is significant for interpreting the principle behind Section 461, clarifying that acts performed by a Magistrate not empowered by law, as listed in the section, render the entire proceedings void ab initio. It underscores that such proceedings are not mere irregularities but fundamental nullities.
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531:
The Supreme Court, in this landmark case, reiterated the fundamental principle that an order or proceeding initiated without jurisdiction is a nullity. This principle is directly applicable to Section 461, where a Magistrate acting without legal empowerment fundamentally lacks jurisdiction, thereby making their proceedings void and without any legal effect.