Section 460 and Section 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India deal with irregular proceedings and their consequences.
Section 460 CrPC: Irregular Proceedings
Section 460 of the CrPC deals with irregularities in proceedings. It states that if any irregularity in the proceedings of a Magistrate, other than an irregularity that affects the merits of the case, has occurred, it does not necessarily render the proceedings void. Irregularities can be corrected unless there has been a failure of justice.
In other words, minor or procedural irregularities that do not impact the fundamental justice of the case can be rectified, and the proceedings need not be declared void because of such irregularities. The focus is on the overall fairness and justice in the proceedings. In essence, Section 461 emphasizes that procedural irregularities in the delivery of judgments or orders should not render the entire proceedings invalid, provided that the accused had a fair opportunity to present their defense during the trial.
Section 461 CrPC: Effect of Irregularities
Section 461 of the CrPC further elaborates on the effect of irregularities in proceedings. It states that no finding, sentence, or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely because no final judgment has been delivered or signed or the judge or Magistrate has not announced the sentence. If it is clear from the record of the case that the accused was present at the trial and had an opportunity to defend themselves, the irregularity in the announcement or delivery of the judgment will not affect the validity of the proceedings.
Distinction Between Procedural Illegality and Procedural Irregularity
The term “illegality” can be defined as actions that are contrary to the law or immoral acts leading to a breach of the law. In contrast, “irregularity,” in simple terms, can be described as the failure to adhere to prescribed rules or procedures, an omission of something essential in the specified procedure, or the improper execution of an act, among other things.
In the case of B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka, the apex court noted that “Irregularities encompass acts that consist of defects that are attributable to the methodology followed during recruitment, whereas illegality encompasses a violation of the law in its entirety.”
In the matter of State of U.P. v. Desh Raj, the Supreme Court provided a more precise differentiation between the two concepts. According to their interpretation, “irregularity” is associated with the substantial compliance of the rules. For instance, in a procedure where part of the process is not followed or completed, while other substantial elements are adhered to. For example, Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the recording of a confession of the accused and statements by witnesses by a magistrate. This process can only be conducted by a magistrate or, in the absence of one, a police officer. The confession should be videographed, and a memorandum should be attached to it. It should also be voluntary and devoid of coercion. If the magistrate or police officer forgets to attach a memorandum to it, it would constitute a procedural irregularity. However, if the confession is found to have been obtained under coercion, it would constitute a procedural illegality as it would violate the entire procedure.
Procedural Irregularity Under the Cr.P.C.
Chapter 35 of the Code deals with irregularities in the Criminal Procedure Code. Irregular proceedings are categorized into two sections. Firstly, Section 460 addresses irregularities that do not have the potential to vitiate or invalidate the entire procedure. On the other hand, Section 461 deals with irregularities that would render the entire procedure void. Additionally, Sections 462 to 466 deal with specific irregularities and outline the mandatory steps or procedures to be followed.
The Seven Principal Irregularities in legal proceedings before the Criminal Courts include:
- Irregularities that do not vitiate proceedings (Section 460 of the Criminal Procedure Code) This section encompasses irregularities that do not nullify the proceedings. According to this section, if a magistrate, in good faith, undertakes actions for which he lacks the legal authority, these actions will not render the entire proceeding void. The nine listed actions for which a magistrate may lack authority include:
- Issuing a search warrant under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Ordering the police to investigate an offense under Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- Holding an inquest under Section 176.
- Issuing a warrant for the apprehension of a person within the magistrate’s local jurisdiction but who has committed the offense outside that jurisdiction, as per Section 187.
- Taking cognizance of an offense under Section 190(1)(a) or 190(1)(b).
- Making over a case under Section 192(2).
- Granting a pardon under Section 306.
- Recalling a case and trying it personally under Section 410.
- Selling property under Section 458 or Section 459.
In the case of P.C. Mishra V. State (C.B.I) and Anr, it was held that even if a magistrate is not authorized by law to grant a pardon, doing so in good faith will not vitiate the proceedings, and the order will be protected under Section 460 of the code.
In the case of Ranjeet Srivastava V. State of U.P. it was held that good faith, as explicitly required in the section, must be complemented by the implicit requirement that such irregularity should not result in a failure of justice.
In the case of Dipak Ghosh Dastidar V. Sunat Kumar Mukherjee, the court dealt with a case where a complaint was not examined before the issuance of a warrant. Still, the warrant was issued. The court ruled that this was a mere irregularity curable under Section 165 of the code, as it did not prejudice the accused due to the non-examination of the complaint.
In the case of R. Basu V. National Capital Territory of Delhi, it was held that the non-examination of the complainant will not vitiate the order of taking cognizance in cases where the complainant is not examined, and cognizance is based on the allegations.
In the case of Satish Dayal Mathur V. M/s. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Company, it was held that as per Section 200 of the code, the magistrate must examine the complaint and witnesses and reduce the substance of such examination to writing, but non-compliance would not vitiate the proceedings; it would be a procedural lapse.
In the case of Dharmendra Singh & another V. State of Orissa & another, the court considered a situation where the magistrate, upon receiving the case, directed it for inquiry under Section 202 without recording the complainant’s statement under Section 200. The court ruled that this omission was an irregularity since it did not cause any prejudice to the parties.
Irregularities that vitiate proceedings (Section 461 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
Section 461 enumerates 17 actions that a magistrate is not authorized to take during a trial. If a magistrate performs any of these actions, the entire proceeding is rendered null and void, without considering good faith. These actions include:
- Attaching and selling property under Section 83 of the code.
- Issuing a search warrant for a document, parcel, or other items in the custody of a postal or telegraph authority.
- Demanding security to keep the peace.
- Demanding security for good behavior.
- Discharging a person bound for good behavior.
- Canceling a bond to keep the peace.
- Making an order for maintenance.
- Making an order under Section 133 of the code for local nuisance.
- Prohibiting, under Section 143, the repetition or continuance of a public nuisance.
- Making an order under Part C or Part D of Chapter X.
- Taking cognizance of an offense under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 190(1) and trying an offender summarily.
- Passing a sentence, as per Section 325 of the code, on proceedings recorded by another magistrate.
- Deciding an appeal.
- Calling for proceedings under Section 397.
- Revising an order passed under Section 446.
In the case of Satpal v. State of Punjab, it was held that Section 461, sub-clause (K), would apply in cases where a magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case and is not authorized to take cognizance.
In the case of Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, it was held that if the trial is conducted entirely differently from what is prescribed in the code, the trial will be deemed bad, and there will be no question of irregularity; the trial will not be curable.
