<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said criminal proceedings cannot be prolonged indefinitely on account of curable procedural defects, as it set aside the Allahabad High Court's order for a fresh trial in a murder case in view of the non-signing of the accused on the order of framing of charges passed in 2009.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said an order for a fresh trial could not be passed in a routine or mechanical manner.</p>.<p>It must be supported by a clear and reasoned finding that the earlier proceedings were vitiated to such an extent that their continuation would result in a miscarriage of justice, they said. </p>.<p>"The distinction between an illegality and an irregularity is well established. An illegality strikes at the root of jurisdiction or renders the trial fundamentally unfair, whereas an irregularity is a defect in procedure which does not vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice is demonstrated," said the bench in its March 25 judgment.</p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal by Sandeep Yadav, the son of the deceased, saying that in the absence of any demonstrated prejudice, the HC was not justified in invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to set aside an entire trial and direct that it be conducted afresh.</p>.<p>In this case, the court noted, the record indicated that the trial had progressed substantially. Charges were framed in the presence of the accused on June 1, 2009, and the prosecution examined several witnesses over a prolonged period.</p>.<p>The accused actively participated in the proceedings and extensively cross-examined the witnesses. The trial had reached an advanced stage and was nearing completion.</p>.<p>The bench said the omission of a signature on the charge, though a procedural lapse, did not render the proceedings invalid when the charge was in fact prepared, recorded, read over, and acted upon by the court and the parties. </p>.<p>The record affirmatively demonstrated that the accused had full knowledge of the accusations and effectively contested the prosecution's case.</p>.<p>The nature of the cross-examination and the defence adopted left no manner of doubt that the accused were neither misled nor prejudiced, said the court.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said criminal proceedings cannot be prolonged indefinitely on account of curable procedural defects, as it set aside the Allahabad High Court's order for a fresh trial in a murder case in view of the non-signing of the accused on the order of framing of charges passed in 2009.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R Mahadevan said an order for a fresh trial could not be passed in a routine or mechanical manner.</p>.<p>It must be supported by a clear and reasoned finding that the earlier proceedings were vitiated to such an extent that their continuation would result in a miscarriage of justice, they said. </p>.<p>"The distinction between an illegality and an irregularity is well established. An illegality strikes at the root of jurisdiction or renders the trial fundamentally unfair, whereas an irregularity is a defect in procedure which does not vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice is demonstrated," said the bench in its March 25 judgment.</p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal by Sandeep Yadav, the son of the deceased, saying that in the absence of any demonstrated prejudice, the HC was not justified in invoking its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to set aside an entire trial and direct that it be conducted afresh.</p>.<p>In this case, the court noted, the record indicated that the trial had progressed substantially. Charges were framed in the presence of the accused on June 1, 2009, and the prosecution examined several witnesses over a prolonged period.</p>.<p>The accused actively participated in the proceedings and extensively cross-examined the witnesses. The trial had reached an advanced stage and was nearing completion.</p>.<p>The bench said the omission of a signature on the charge, though a procedural lapse, did not render the proceedings invalid when the charge was in fact prepared, recorded, read over, and acted upon by the court and the parties. </p>.<p>The record affirmatively demonstrated that the accused had full knowledge of the accusations and effectively contested the prosecution's case.</p>.<p>The nature of the cross-examination and the defence adopted left no manner of doubt that the accused were neither misled nor prejudiced, said the court.</p>
