9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code during the trial. 2. Whether the failure to observe the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiates the trial. 3. Applicability of section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code to cure errors in the trial. 4. Effect of non-observance of sections 242 and 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the validity of the trial. Detailed Analysis: The case involved an appeal by Express Dairy Limited against a conviction for storing adulterated milk under the Calcutta Municipal Act. Various defences were raised, including the argument that the trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code. The defence contended that the company was not examined in accordance with the provisions of sections 242 and 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which were essential for a fair trial. The company, being a juridical person, could not be personally examined or have the charge explained to it as required by the Code. The Court considered whether the failure to comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code would invalidate the trial. It was argued that the errors in following sections 242 and 342 of the Code were fundamental and not curable under section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Previous decisions of the Court had held that such failures vitiated the trial, and the Court was bound by these precedents. The Court emphasized the importance of allowing the accused to present their defence and the right to be heard, which were compromised by the failure to examine the accused under section 342. Regarding the applicability of section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code to cure errors in the trial, the Court distinguished a previous decision of the Judicial Committee, stating that it did not directly address the specific provisions at issue in this case. The Court held that the failure to observe sections 242 and 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be cured under section 537, as these errors were fundamental to a fair trial and deprived the accused of their rights. In conclusion, the Court found that the trial had been vitiated by the failure to comply with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the case was remanded for retrial by a Municipal Magistrate, with instructions for proper compliance with the provisions of the Code. The company undertook to appoint a representative for the retrial to ensure compliance with the legal requirements for a fair trial.
|
