Irregular Proceedings Under Sections 460 And 461 Of CRPC

Coverage of this Article

KEY TAKEAWAYS

-The purpose of criminal law is to defend and protect the interests of society among other things. However, there may be some instances where irregularities have been committed which may be curable irregularity or incurable irregularity.

INTRODUCTION

-The Indian criminal law, which deals with matters relating to violation of prohibited social conduct, strives to deliver justice by punishing the guilty and providing relief to the aggrieved parties.

SECTION 460

-Section 460 CrPC is referred to cure nine kinds of irregularities provided they are caused erroneously and in good faith. A further qualification is implied in this section that the irregularity should not cause a failure of justice.

SECTION 461

-Section 461 CrPC lists 17 kinds of irregularities, which if committed by any Magistrate, would result in vitiating the proceedings. No question of good faith arises here. To put it another way, these are illegalities which vitiate the proceedings. Legally, such proceedings have no existence.

RELATED JUDGEMENTS

Ranjeet Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2015

-The Allahabad High Court held that it is clear from the provisions of Sections 460 and 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the legislature has classified defects or irregularities into two categories: (i) curable, which does not vitiate proceedings, and (ii) incurable, which does vitiate proceedings.

Dilip Kumar Kundu & others v. Madan Chandra Dey & another, 1992

-In this case, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in a complaint pertaining to an offence under various provisions of IPC, concluded that the complainant's examination on firm affirmation is not a need for taking cognizance, and that a Magistrate's issuing of summons without examining the complainant on solemn affirmation is just an irregularity.

Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana, 2020

-The court ruled in this case that any proceeding that is void under Section 461 cannot be saved under Section 462. The focus of Section 461 18 clause (l) is on the "offender" rather than the "offence."

Section 460

Lalit Chandra Chowdhury vs Emperor, 1911

-The Calcutta High Court held that apart from the requirement of good faith (as expressly specified in the section), there is also an implied requirement that such irregularity should not be a cause of failure of justice.

P.C. Mishra vs State (C.B.I) & anr, 2014

-It was held that even if the Magistrate was not authorised by law to grant a pardon and the order was made in good faith, it was determined that the order was protected by Section 460 Cr.P.C.

Section 461

Govind Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997

-In this case it was held that in cases of initial lack of jurisdiction to the Magistrate, no question of error or good faith arises as such proceedings have no existence in the eye of law. 

Satpal v. State of Punjab, 2018

-The Punjab-Haryana High Court stated that section 461(k) of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply in circumstances where a Magistrate with no jurisdiction or authority takes cognizance of a matter.

Suresh v. State of Kerala, 2018

-Kerala HC noted that Section 461 Cr.P.C. describes precisely, the terms and the irregularities that would vitiate the proceedings. 

Atma Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019

-Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has summarised the legal provisions relating to irregular proceedings as: ‘Chapter XXXV of the Code deals with “Irregular Proceedings”, and Section 461 stipulates certain infringements or irregularities which vitiate proceedings.

CONCLUSION

-Irregular proceedings mean anything that vitiates the court’s proceedings and ultimately doesn’t provide relief to the aggrieved person, there are some sections which deal with the legal provision of irregular proceedings, i.e. section 460-466 wherein consequences of irregular proceedings and in regular proceedings are listed.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The purpose of criminal law is to defend and protect the interests of society among other things. However, there may be some instances where irregularities have been committed which may be curable irregularity or incurable irregularity.
• Section 460 CrPC deals with curable irregularities and section 461 CrPC deals with incurable irregularities.
• Not every irregularity vitiates the trial of a criminal case. It is only that irregularity which has some illegality, which penetrates to the heart of the case and vitiates the proceedings. Section 461 of the code deals with such situations.

INTRODUCTION

The Indian criminal law, which deals with matters relating to violation of prohibited social conduct, strives to deliver justice by punishing the guilty and providing relief to the aggrieved parties. The purpose of criminal law is to defend and protect the interests of society among other things. The criminal law is applied by criminal courts through statutes, decisions, and other means, with the expectation that the courts will achieve a final resolution without any irregularities. However, there may be some instances where irregularities have been committed which may be curable irregularity or incurable irregularity. This article deals with the effects of irregularities committed by a criminal court.

The provisions related to irregular proceedings are contained in Chapter XXXV CrPC, 1973 containing sections 460-466. Section 460 CrPC deals with curable irregularities and section 461 CrPC deals with incurable irregularities.

SECTION 460

Section 460 CrPC is referred to cure nine kinds of irregularities provided they are caused erroneously and in good faith. A further qualification is implied in this section that the irregularity should not cause a failure of justice.

If a magistrate who’s not empowered by law on this behalf does any of the following things -

• Issuing a search- warrant under section 94;
• to order, under section 155, the police to investigate an offence;
• to hold an inquest under section 176;
• to issue 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;
• to take cognizance of an offence under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 190;
• to make over a case under sub- section (2) of section 192;
• to tender a pardon under section 306;
• to recall a case and try it himself under section 410; or
• to sell 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.

SECTION 461

Section 461 CrPC lists 17 kinds of irregularities, which if committed by any Magistrate, would result in vitiating the proceedings. No question of good faith arises here. To put it another way, these are illegalities which vitiate the proceedings. Legally, such proceedings have no existence.

If the magistrate not having the power to do any of the following things, namely,

• attaches and sells property under section 83;
• issues a search- warrant for a document, parcel or other thing in the custody of a postal or telegraph authority;
• demands security to keep the peace;
• demands security for good behaviour;
• discharges a person lawfully bound to be of good behaviour;
• cancels a bond to keep the peace;
• makes an order for maintenance;
• makes an order under section 133 as to a local nuisance;
• prohibits, under section 143, the repetition or continuance of a public nuisance;
• makes an order under Part C or Part D of Chapter X;
• takes cognizance of an offence under clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 190
• tries an offender;
• tries an offender summarily;
• passes a sentence, under section 325, on proceedings recorded by another Magistrate;
• decides an appeal;
• calls, under section 397, for proceedings; or
• revises an order passed under section 446, his proceedings shall be void.

RELATED JUDGEMENTS

Ranjeet Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2015

The Allahabad High Court held that it is clear from the provisions of Sections 460 and 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the legislature has classified defects or irregularities into two categories: (i) curable, which does not vitiate proceedings, and (ii) incurable, which does vitiate proceedings.

Dilip Kumar Kundu & others v. Madan Chandra Dey & another, 1992

In this case, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in a complaint pertaining to an offence under various provisions of IPC, concluded that the complainant's examination on firm affirmation is not a need for taking cognizance, and that a Magistrate's issuing of summons without examining the complainant on solemn affirmation is just an irregularity.

Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana, 2020

The court ruled in this case that any proceeding that is void under Section 461 cannot be saved under Section 462. The focus of Section 461 18 clause (l) is on the "offender" rather than the "offence." The outcome might have been different if clause (l) had used the terms "tries an offence" instead of "tries an offender."

The word "offence" appears three times in Section 460, which specifies nine anomalies that do not invalidate the proceedings: clauses (b), (d), and (e) (e). The word "offender" is never mentioned in Section 460. Section 461, on the other hand, only uses the word "offence" once, in clause (a), but uses the word "offender" twice, in clauses (l) and (m).

Further stating that it is clear if an offender is tried by a Magistrate not empowered by law on that behalf, his proceedings shall be void under Section 461. Section 462 do not make the principle contained therein to have force notwithstanding anything mentioned in Section 461.

As a result, a criminal Court's jurisdiction is typically tied to the crime and, in some situations, to the offender, as in cases when the perpetrator is a minor (section 27) or the victim is a woman [the proviso to clause (a) of section 26]. However, Section 461(l) focuses on the criminal rather than the crime. Section 462 of the Code of 1973 contains a saving clause that is identical to Section 531 of the Code of 1898.

In light of the aforementioned scheme of the CrPC, the Court decided that the words "tries an offence" in section 461 are more appropriate than "tries an offender" (l).

Because section 462 cannot cure a lack of jurisdiction to try an offence, section 461, logically, may have included the trial of an offence by a Magistrate who is not authorised by law to do so as one of the multiple factors holding the proceedings unlawful.

Whereas, the trial of an offender by a court with no territorial jurisdiction can be preserved under section 462, assuming there are no other obstacles to the court trying the offender" (such as in section 27). However, Section 461 (l) renders a Magistrate's proceedings void if he tried a criminal while he was not authorised by law to do was stated by the court.

Section 460

Lalit Chandra Chowdhury vs Emperor, 1911

The Calcutta High Court held that apart from the requirement of good faith (as expressly specified in the section), there is also an implied requirement that such irregularity should not be a cause of failure of justice.

P.C. Mishra vs State (C.B.I) & anr, 2014

It was held that even if the Magistrate was not authorised by law to grant a pardon and the order was made in good faith, it was determined that the order was protected by Section 460 Cr.P.C.

Section 461

Govind Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997

In this case it was held that in cases of initial lack of jurisdiction to the Magistrate, no question of error or good faith arises as such proceedings have no existence in the eye of law. Not every irregularity vitiates the trial of a criminal case. It is only that irregularity that has some illegality, which penetrates to the heart of the case and vitiates the proceedings. Section 461 of the code deals with such situations.

Satpal v. State of Punjab, 2018

The Punjab-Haryana High Court stated that section 461(k) of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply in circumstances where a Magistrate with no jurisdiction or authority takes cognizance of a matter.

Suresh v. State of Kerala, 2018

Kerala HC noted that Section 461 Cr.P.C. describes precisely, the terms and the irregularities that would vitiate the proceedings. It is clearly mentioned in clause (l) of sub-section(1) of Section 461 Cr.P.C. that in a situation where a court tries an offender without being empowered to do so, as per the mandate in Section 228 Cr.P.C. The accused in this case ought to have been tried by the Judicial First Class Magistrate empowered to do so by the Code of Criminal Procedure and when the same is conducted by the Court of Sessions, without being empowered to do so, proceedings are irregular and are void.

Atma Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has summarised the legal provisions relating to irregular proceedings as: ‘Chapter XXXV of the Code deals with “Irregular Proceedings”, and Section 461 stipulates certain infringements or irregularities which vitiate proceedings. Barring those mentioned in Section 461, the thrust of the Chapter is that any infringement or irregularity would not vitiate the proceedings unless, as a result of such infringement or irregularity, great prejudice had occasioned to the accused.’ The courts’ prime duty is to evade such circumstances through which the miscarriage of justice is caused. The power given in Chapter XXXV should be used properly and with caution.

CONCLUSION

Irregular proceedings mean anything that vitiates the court’s proceedings and ultimately doesn’t provide relief to the aggrieved person, there are some sections which deal with the legal provision of irregular proceedings, i.e. section 460-466 wherein consequences of irregular proceedings and in regular proceedings are listed. Some of the situations listed above in which an omission on a procedural error was ruled to be irregularities did not vitiate the trial and were appropriate under section 465 of the code since they did not result in a failure of justice.

It also included some time failure to examine the complainant on oath, omission to pronounce the judgement before converting or sentencing the accused, omission to stay on put date in the judgement at the time of pronouncing it, adopting the procedure of warrant case in case tribal as a summon case, omission of the session judge talking about the cognizance of the case and the wrong section but convention being ordered by the competent court under Code section failure to record any relevant fact of the magistrate, Section 310 of CrPC. These are just a few examples of the many that can be cured under sections of irregular proceedings that provide no prejudice to the accused person.