Chapter XXXV
Section 465 CrPC: Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity
New Law Update (2024)
Section 523 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless, in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 465(1)
This sub-section acts as a protective shield, preventing higher courts from overturning a lower court’s decision merely due to minor technical errors, omissions, or irregularities in the trial process. A reversal is only justified if these defects have actually led to a “failure of justice,” meaning substantial prejudice or injustice.
Section 465(2)
This sub-section provides guidance on how to determine if a “failure of justice” has occurred. It directs courts to consider whether the error or irregularity was objected to at an earlier stage of the proceedings, implying that belated objections to minor issues might not be sufficient grounds for reversal.
Landmark Judgements
Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. (1956):
This landmark Supreme Court case established that minor defects in framing charges or procedural irregularities, unless proven to have caused actual prejudice to the accused, would not vitiate a conviction. The Court emphasized that the test is whether the accused was misled or prejudiced in their defence.
Nazar Singh v. State of Punjab (1993):
The Supreme Court reiterated that technical or procedural errors that do not lead to a “failure of justice” (i.e., substantial prejudice to the accused) should not be a ground for overturning a judgment. The focus remains on the substance of the trial and whether a fair opportunity was given.