Even Non-Framing Of Charge Would Not Vitiate A Conviction When No Prejudice Has Been Pointed Out By Accused: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that even non-framing of charge would not vitiate a conviction when no prejudice has been pointed out by the accused.
The Court noted that the Court which framed the charge (Additional Sessions Court) against the accused had no jurisdiction to try the offence alleged under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. A Special Court (Trial Court) constituted under the Act recorded the evidence, and thereafter, on realising that a Court that was not notified under Sections 36 and 36A of the Act had framed the charge, decided to frame a new charge.
A Single Bench of Justice K. Babu observed, “It is important to note that the accused faced trial in the Trial Court (the competent Court having jurisdiction to try the case), knowing well that a Court having no jurisdiction to try the case had framed the charge. The accused did not mention this irregularity while the Trial Court recorded the evidence. Without any objection, he participated in the trial. He never raised a case that he was prejudiced while participating in the trial based on a charge framed by a Court having no jurisdiction. He did not object to the framing of the new charge till the filing of this revision petition.”
Advocate C.V. Manuvilsan appeared for the revision petitioner, while Public Prosecutor G Sudheer represented the respondents.
The High Court explained that Section 464 of the Cr.PC provides that a finding, sentence or order could be set aside only in those cases where the facts are such that no valid charge could be framed against the accused in respect of the facts proved.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kammari Brahmaiah v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. (1999), the Court explained, “If the facts are such that a charge could be framed and yet it is not framed, but no failure of justice has in fact, been occasioned, thereby, the finding, sentence or order of the Court of competent jurisdiction is not to be set aside on that ground.”
The Bench noted that there was nothing to show that the accused suffered any prejudice by reason of the framing of the charge by a Court that had no jurisdiction.
“There could not have been any illegality even if the Trial Court had not framed any new charge in view of the mandate of Section 464 Cr.PC. As an abundant caution, the Trial Court framed a new charge and called upon both sides to lead evidence. The order impugned does not require any interference,” the Bench observed.
The Court noted that the accused faced the trial in the Trial Court (the competent Court having jurisdiction to try the case), knowing well that a Court (Sessions Court) which had no jurisdiction to try the case had framed the charge. Moreover, the Bench noted that there was no material to show that the same resulted in a “failure of justice.” “Even non-framing of charge would not vitiate a conviction when no prejudice has been pointed out by the accused,” it remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “Even if the Trial Court had not framed any new charge, the defect that occurred could have been taken care of by the mandate of Section 465 Cr.PC. Even the absence of a charge by a Court will not vitiate the trial or the judgment to be delivered in this case.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
Cause Title: Sojith v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:76028)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates C.V. Manuvilsan, O.A. Anju, Harkishan K.P., Surabhi R., Naeem Ibrahim and Vrinda Lakshmanan
Respondents: Public Prosecutor G Sudheer
