SHAH HABIPUR RAHMAN AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by two (sic) order of Civil and Sessions (sic)rejecting their revision (sic)n under Section 426, IPC. (sic)n in revision is that charged along with (sic)read with Section 149 (sic)They were not (sic) 426, IPC.

(2.) IT is (sic)ir conviction (sic)Reliance is (sic)Punjab (1) (sic)desh(2). (sic) reger (sic) of observations. He considered non -framing of a charge to be a breach of fundamental provisions concerning the mode of trial and therefore sufficient to invalidate the trial. This would appear from para. 97 of the report. Considering the effect of Section 535, Code of Criminal Procedure validating the trial which otherwise might be invalid, he observed at page 60.

(3.) THE facts of each case, as they arise, will have to be carefully considered in order to decide that which was prima facie 'invalid' is deemed to be valid by virtue of its provisions. There may be cases where the omission to frame a charge was merely a technical defect in which case Section 535 would apply. On the other hand, there may be cases where failure to frame a charge affects the mode of trial or it is such a substantial contravention of the provisions of the Code relating to the framing of charges that prejudice may be inferred at once and the conviction which was 'prima facie' invalid continued to be so.