Page |1

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE

SECTION 464

SUBJECT

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

NAME OF THE FACULTY

MRS. SOMA BHATTACHARJYA

Name of the Candidate

Roll No

Semester

Vijay Srinivas K

18llb095

4th semester
 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express our sincere gratitude to our MS.SOMA BATTACHARYA, for not only
providing me with an opportunity to do this project but also for providing her indispensable
guidance and support in conducting a detailed study on this topic.

I am also grateful towards everyone who has helped, in one way or the other, to complete the
project. A lot of effort has been put into this study to make it as factually error free as possible
and we thank everyone for ensuring the same.

I also thank my parents for their kind cooperation and encouragement without which this project
would not have been possible.
 Page |3

SYNOPSIS

Title: S. 464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge.

Introduction: S. 464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge.

(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid
merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or
irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court
of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in
fact been occasioned, it may

(a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial
be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge;

(b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon
a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit:

Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge
could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the
conviction.

The object of framing a charge is to enable the accused person to know the accusation against
him so that he can prepare for his defense. Any omission, irregularity or defect in the framing of
charge may cause prejudice to the accused. But it is not necessarily so in all the cases. Therefore,
this section provides that a mere omission to frame the charge or any error, omission or
irregularity in the charge including misjoinder of charges will be no ground for a de novo trial or
a re-trial unless it has occasioned a failure of justice to the accused.

Research Question

1. Whether the interpretation of the section by the courts is valid in the secure of justice?

Aims and Objectives: The main aim and objective of the project is to make a detailed study on
how the section interpreted in secure of justice
 Page |4

Literature Review:

Section 464 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 R.V. Kelkar’s lectures on Criminal Procedure

Scope of the study: The study analyses the various legal interpretation by the Courts. It clearly
states the importance of the interpretation of the particular section in the process achieving of the
justice.

Significance of the study: The present study is about the interpretation of the section in certain
offences with alongside studying the case laws which clarify point of law in reference to this
provision which deal with critical question of law.

Research Methodology: The researcher has used doctrinal and analytical method of research.
The researcher has confined her study to various books related to criminal law.

Sources of data:-

a. Primary source-The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

b. Secondary source- Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Criminal Procedure Code, 21st Edition; Sarkar,
Commentary on Criminal Procedure Code, 10th Edition, Vol 2, 2012 and legal data resources
such as Manupatra, SCC Online, Westlaw etc.
 Page |5

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Error or Omission or Irregularity in Framing Charge
3. Charged for One and Convicted for Another
4. Powers of Appellate Court
5. Failure of Justice
6. Conclusion
 Page |6

“INTRODUCTION

S. 464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge.

(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid
merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or
irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court
of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.

(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in
fact been occasioned, it may

(a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial
be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge;

(b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon
a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit:

Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge
could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the
conviction.

Section 464 corresponds to Sections 535 and 537(b) of the Old Code, 1898 Clause (b) and its
proviso are new provisions. Now a retrial on discovery of any omission or error or irregularity in
respect of a charge is not mandatory as was under the old Code. The Law Commissioners in 41st
Report observed:

“We are also of the opinion that a retrial should not be mandatory as at present. In several
reported cases, the Courts have in the interests of justice refrained from ordering a retrial, as for
instance, when the accused has already undergone sufficient punishment or when the evidence
was considered insufficient to support a conviction. It would be better to make the provision for
ordering retrial discretionary so that a Court could pass an order appropriate in the particular
circumstances of a case.”

The words “No finding or sentence” have been substituted by “No finding, sentence or order”.
 Page |7

The finding, sentence or order must now be of a “Court of competent jurisdiction”. These words
were not in the old sub-section.

The sub-section now takes within its scope “grounds of any error, omission or irregularity in the
charge including any misjoinder of charges”.

Along with Court of Appeal and Revision, the sub-section now also refers to Court of
confirmation.

Sub-section (2) corresponds to sub-section (2) of the old section 535.

Clause (a) reproduces the substance of old sub-section (2) in a redrafted form.

Clause (b) and the proviso are new, and make provision for cases in which an error, omission or
irregularity has been found in the framing of a charge.

The proviso makes a new provision altogether. If the Court finds that on the basis of evidence no
facts have been proved on the basis of which a charge could be framed, the conviction shall be
quashed.

Section 464 is in mandatory terms and specifically provides what is to be done in cases where a
charge is not framed or there is an error, omission or irregularity in framing of the charge. 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. 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. If there is failure of justice occasioned by not framing of the
charge or in case of an error, or omission in the charge, retrial of the case is to be directed under
sub-section (2)1.

The principles deducible from various decisions are

 The accused should not suffer any prejudice by reason of misjoinder of charges.
 A conviction for lesser offence is permissible.
 It should not result in failure of justice.
1
Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P., 2007 CrLJ 1435
 Page |8

 If there is a substantial compliance, misjoinder of charges may not be fatal and such
misjoinder must be arising out of mere misjoinder to frame charges.
 Page |9

Error or Omission or Irregularity in Framing Charge

In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in framing the relevant charges had
led to failure of justice, the court must have regard to whether an objection could have been
raised at an earlier stage of the proceedings or not. The defect in framing of charges must be so
serious that it cannot be covered under sections 464/465 of the Code. While judging the question
of prejudice or guilt, the court must bear in mind that every accused has a right to a fair trial,
where he is aware of what he is being tried for. 2 Dr BS Chauhan J (speaking for the Bench),
observed:

There would be “failure of justice”, not only by unjust conviction, but also acquittal of the
guilty, as a result of unjust failure to produce requisite evidence. Of course, the rights of the
accused have to be kept in mind and also safeguarded, but they should not be over emphasised to
the extent of forgetting that the victims also have rights. It has to be shown that the accused has
suffered some disability or detriment in respect of the protections available to him under Indian
Criminal Jurisprudence. “Prejudice”, is incapable of being interpreted in its generic sense and
applied to criminal jurisprudence. The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or
trial, and not with respect to matters falling outside their scope. Once the accused is able to show
that there has been serious prejudice caused to him, with respect to either of these aspects, and
the same has defeated the rights available to him under jurisprudence, then the accused can seek
benefit under the orders of the Court.

Any mere error, omission or irregularity in the charge will not invalidate the finding as a matter
of law in the absence of prejudice to the convicted person 3. A slight mistake or defect in a charge
could not possibly vitiate the trial. Where the charge by referring to various sections of the
Indian Penal Code made clear the objects of conspiracy, and the charge was fully understood by
the applicants and they never complained at the appropriate stage that they were confused or
bewildered, it was held that the charge was proper. Even vagueness of the charge will not make
the trial illegal when no prejudice is caused to the accused 4. In a case under section 161 IPC,
where the accused, a public servant, was prosecuted for taking bribe and in the charge there was

2
Darbara Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 840
3
Bharwad Mepa Dana v State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 289
4
RK Dalmia v Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821
 P a g e | 10

omission to indicate the other public servant with whom service or disservice would be rendered,
it was held that it would mean there was a defect in the charge which would be curable under this
section5.

The omission to frame a charge is, by itself not enough for the Court of appeal, confirmation or
revision to direct the framing of the charge. What is essential for doing so is that the Court of
appeal in revision or confirmation must record a finding to the effect that failure of justice has in
fact been occasioned on account of the non framing of charge6.

The sections referred to indicate that in the generality of cases the omission to frame a charge is
not per se fatal. It is not, therefore, correct to say that in every case where there is no charge the
conviction would be illegal, prejudice or no prejudice. At the same time, it cannot be said that
section 464 is sufficiently wide to cover every case of “no charge” and that it applies also to the
case of a trial in which there has been no charge of any kind from the very outset. Section 464
normally relates to errors or omissions which occur in a trial that has already commenced. There
may be cases where a trial proceeds without any kind of charge at the outset. Then it can be said
to be a trial wholly contrary to what is prescribed by the Code. In such cases the trial would be
illegal without the necessity of a positive finding of prejudice. The Code requires that there
should be a charge and it should be in writing. A deliberate breach of this basic requirement
cannot be cured by the assertion that everything was orally explained to the accused and there
was no possible or probable prejudice7.

The omission to frame a charge is in effect very similar to a refusal to give the accused a hearing
or a refusal to allow him to defend him or a refusal to explain the nature of the charge to him.
The accused is not asked to defend himself in regard to an offence he is not charged with. The
omission should attract similar consequences. It is not per se fatal. But it would be sometimes a
glaring circumstance pointing to prejudice. There may, however, be cases where it is possible to
come to the conclusion without any hesitation that the omission has not caused any injustice.
Cases can be conceived in which the plea of prejudice may not be open to an accused even
though there was a total omission to frame the charge8.

5
State of Maharashtra v Jagatsingh Charansingh, AIR 1964 SC 492
6
Sushil Ansal v State, (2014) 6 SCC 173
7
Nanak Chand v State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 274
8
Jagmal Singh v State of Haryana, (1979) 81 Punj LR 480 at 483.
 P a g e | 11

It is imperative that a man must know for what offence he is being tried, and that he must be told
in clear and unambiguous terms and that it must all be explained to him so that he really
understands such explanations and information of the substance of the matter, and it is only if
these conditions are fulfilled and the questions, “was he told, was it explained to him?” are
satisfactorily answered that the absence of a charge may be regarded as immaterial having regard
to the well-known principle that a charge in a criminal trial is framed with a view to enable the
accused person to understand what the prosecution alleges against him and what they are seeking
to prove and what it is that he has got to meet in order that he may be acquitted.9

The omission to frame a charge is a grave defect and should be vigilantly guarded against. In
some cases, it may be so serious that by itself it would vitiate a trial and render it illegal,
prejudice to the accused being taken for granted. In the main, the provisions of section 464
would apply to cases of inadvertence to frame a charge induced by the belief that the matter on
record is sufficient to warrant the conviction for a particular offence without express
specification, and where the facts proved by the prosecution constitute a separate and distinct
offence, but closely relevant to and springing out of the same set of facts connected with the one
charged. Where the omission is conscious the defect cannot be cured.10

The Code requires that there should be a charge and it should be in writing. A deliberate breach
of this basic requirement cannot be cured by the assertion that everything was orally explained to
the accused, and there was no possible or probable prejudice.

Irregularity

The term “illegality” must be read with reference to the facts of that case where the court found
prejudice. The Code does not use the word “illegality”, nor defines “irregularity” and illegality
can only mean an incurable illegality, incurable because of prejudice leading to a failure of
justice.11

Even if there was some defect in the procedure followed at the trial it does not follow that the
Trial Court acted without jurisdiction. There is a basic difference between want of jurisdiction

9
Willie (William) Slany v State of Madhya Pradesh, 1950 Cr LJ 291 at 312
10
Babu Lal v State, AIR 1960 All 290
11
Bhoor Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 1256
 P a g e | 12

and an illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The defect, if any, can according to the
procedure established by law be corrected only by a court of appeal or revision.12

Non-framing of charge

Mere non-framing of charge would not vitiate conviction when no prejudice has been pointed
out by the accused.13

It is possible for the appellate or Revisional Court to convict an accused for an offence for which
no charge was framed unless the court is of the opinion that a failure of justice would in fact
occasion. In order to Judge whether a failure of justice has been occasioned, it will be relevant to
examine whether the accused was aware of the basic ingredients of the offence for which he is
being convicted and whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained
to him clearly and whether he got a fair chance to defend himself. Where the accused had been
charged for offence under section 498A, in examination under section 313, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 basic ingredients of offence under section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 were
explained to the accused, the accused could be convicted under section 306, Indian Penal Code,
1860, even though no charge under the section had been framed14.

Where no specific charge under section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860 had been framed, and
accused had been prejudiced by the omission, he would not be convicted under section 364,
Indian Penal Code, 1860.15

In a case, where the accused persons were alleged to have trespassed in the field of the deceased
and fatally assaulted him, charges were framed under sections 447, 504 and 300 read with
section 34. However, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused persons had not
acted in furtherance of common intention and only one accused caused fatal injury. It was held
that the others who caused only bleeding injuries can be convicted for their individual acts even
though there was no separate charge. It was held that the court had power to alter the charge,
hence refusal to convict them for their acts was improper.16
12
Janaradhan Reddy v State of Hyderabad, AIR 1951 SC 217
13
Kammari Brahmaiah v Public Prosecutor High Court AP, AIR 1999 SC 775
14
Dalbir Singh v State of UP, AIR 2004 SC 1990
15
Gaddala Deshaiah v State of AP, 2005 Cr LJ 828 (830, 831) (AP).
16
Bhimanna v State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 3026
 P a g e | 13

Where the accused-appellant along with co-accused were alleged to have fatally assaulted the
deceased and the accused persons had gone there with the intention to kill and the both of them
not only inflicted injuries on the deceased, the appellant had been proved to have caused injury
on the head of the deceased, it was held that failure to charge the appellant under section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 cannot be said to have caused prejudice to the accused. Hence,
conviction of appellant under section 300 with the aid of section 34 was held to be proper.17

Charged for One and Convicted for Another

This section is not confined to cases where no charge at all has been framed, but applies also to
cases in which a charge has been framed but no charge has been framed for the particular offence

17
Darbara Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 840
 P a g e | 14

of which the accused has been convicted. Though the accused were charged of an offence under
sections 302, 149, they could be convicted under sections 302/3418.

An accused charged under section 396 IPC can be convicted under section 394 IPC, the latter
being a minor offence, and no prejudice results to the accused. 19 Though section 34 IPC, was not
added to section 302, the accused had clear notice that they were being charged with the offence
of committing murder in pursuance of their common intention to put an end to a life. Hence the
omission to mention section 34 IPC in the charge only had academic significance, and did not in
any way misled the accused20.

Where the accused was charged and convicted under section 165A IPC, but in appeal the High
Court changed the conviction to one under sections 161/109 IPC on the ground that section 165A
IPC had not come into force when the offence was committed, and maintained the sentence, it
was held that there was no illegality since the effect in law of sections 161/109 IPC was precisely
the same as that of section 165A IPC21.

One of the fundamental principles of criminal law as administered in this country is that there
should be a separate charge for every distinct offence and the accused person must have notice of
the charge which he has to meet. Certain exceptions are provided to this general rule by sections
221 and 222 of the Code.22

In cases not covered by section 221, the omission to frame a separate and specific charge may
be an incurable irregularity amounting to an illegality. Thus on a charge for a minor offence
there can be no conviction for a major offence, e.g. grievous hurt or rioting and murder.23

The particulars necessary for proving a charge under section 395 IPC, are different from the
particulars necessary for proving a charge under section 147 or section 148 IPC. An appellate
Court cannot therefore alter a conviction under section 395 to one under section 147 or section

18
Abdul Rahim v King-Emperor, AIR 1925 Cal 926
19
Karna Dasharath Mali v State of Maharashtra, 2000 Cr LJ 1288
20
Rawalpenta Venkalu v State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 171
21
Om Prakash v State of UP, AIR 1960 SC 409
22
Bijo Gope v Emperor, AIR 1945 Pat 376 at 379
23
Willie (William) Slaney v State of Madhya Pradesh, 1956 Cr LJ 291 at 312
 P a g e | 15

148 IPC. But the conviction for one offence different from the one the accused is charged is not
always fatal even if the case does not fall within the provisions of section 221(2). A man may be
convicted of an offence, although there has been no charge in respect of it, if the evidence is such
as to establish a charge that might have been made.

Section 221(2) allows conviction for an offence with which the accused was not charged at all.
“Not charged with” means that the particular offence is not mentioned in the charge though the
facts constituting it are mentioned. The Court can, however, convict the accused for any offence
constituted by the facts mentioned in the charge even though not charged with it. It can invoke
the aid of section 215 and ignore the error in stating the offence in the charge or the omission to
state the offence of which he is found guilty24.

Though no charge under section 302 IPC, was framed and only a charge under sections 302/149
IPC, was framed, the prosecution case was that the convicted appellant caused the stated injuries
and he had full notice of the prosecution case. Held, conviction under section 302 IPC, was
justified25.

Omission to mention section 34 in the charge, be it of a substantive offence or be it of a

substantive offence read with section 149 IPC, is no bar to the recording of the conviction for
that offence read with section 34 IPC if the facts alleged and proved justify the application of
section 34 IPC against the accused.26

Powers of Appellate Court

Section 464 provides for a case in which the trial Court convicted without a charge. The
appellate Court is forbidden to quash the finding unless in its opinion a failure of justice had in
fact been occasioned by the absence of a charge. If a failure of justice had been occasioned, the
appellate Court should direct re-trial under section 464. 27Misjoinder of charges as affecting the

24
Rajendra Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 All 387
25
Rajappan v State of Kerala, 1981 Ker LT 41
26
Sheo Ram v Emperor, AIR 1948 All 162 at 163
27
Rajendra Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 All 387
 P a g e | 16

trial was not raised at all before the trial Court. Revisional Court refused to interfere with the
conviction.28

Misjoinder of accused was not raised either at the trial stage or at the appellate stage. Nor was it
raised as a ground before the Supreme Court. Further no prejudice was shown to have resulted
by such misjoinder. While affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court reduced the sentence.29

No finding or sentence pronounced or passed shall be deemed to be invalid merely on the

ground that no charge was framed, unless the Court of appeal or revision thinks that the omission
to do so has occasioned failure of justice, in which case it may order a charge to be framed and
direct that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge.30

Where there is error or omission in the charge or the charge is totally vague or not supported by
the material on record, the appellate Court would direct the new trial to be had upon the charge
framed in whatever manner he thinks fit.31

There is no prejudice caused to an accused where the High Court amended the charge so as to
add a case of misappropriation of goods in the alternative to misappropriation of money, and
instead of directing a retrial, gave an opportunity to the accused to safeguard himself against any
prejudice by recalling any witness and adducing any evidence on his behalf.32

In view of section 464 CrPC, it is possible for the appellate or revisional Court to convict an
accused for an offence for which no charge was framed unless the Court is of the opinion that
failure of justice would in fact occasion.33

Sub-section (2)(a) applies only in the case of omission to frame a charge and the omission has
occasioned a failure of justice. A superior Court will not act under this section and order the
framing of a charge for an offence of abduction under section 366 IPC, when under that section
itself a charge for the offence of kidnapping has been framed and the prosecution case is of
doubtful veracity.34
28
Badri Lal Hiralal v State of MP, 1988 MPLJ 354
29
Prem Chand v State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 937
30
Kantilal Chandulal v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 359
31
Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate v Khader Sulaiman, 2003 Mad LJ (Cri) 294
32
Kantilal Chandulal v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 359
33
Balraje v State of Maharashtra, 2010 Cr LJ 3443 (3447)
34
Khanna v State, 1961 Jab LJ 76 at 78
 P a g e | 17

Order for retrial, on account of omission to frame a charge, depends on the facts of a case and
also whether the accused has been prejudiced by that defect.35

Unauthorized alteration of charge from section 395 IPC to section 392 IPC, without assigning
any reason and without hearing any evidence would prejudice the accused.36

Where the appellate order of remand was clear and specific, the charges had to be reframed and
the case tried afresh. The procedure adopted by the Magistrate commencing the trial from the
stage immediately after framing of the charge was unwarranted in law.”

Failure of Justice

Conviction would be invalid for wrong framing of charge only if it has resulted in failure of
justice. The accused has to satisfy the Court that if there is any defect in framing the charge it has
prejudiced the cause of the accused resulting in failure of justice. It is only in that eventuality the
Court may interfere.37

The expression “failure of justice” does not connote that an innocent person has been convicted
or that the case against the accused person is not made out beyond reasonable doubt. An accused
person would be entitled to an acquittal in such a case whether or not there has been a fair trial or
35
Dal Chand v State, (1982) 21 DLT 127
36
Paimullah v Emperor, (1912) 13 Cr LJ 127 at 128
37
Darbara Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 2013 SC 840
 P a g e | 18

failure of justice. For that purpose the Legislature need not have introduced the conception of
“failure of justice” in this section and section 465. Failure of justice within the meaning of these
sections is that occasioned by the contravention of the provisions of Chapter XVII. In law the
expression “justice” comprehends not merely a just decision but also a fair trial. These two
sections, sections 464 and 465, have, therefore, in view a fair trial. A denial of a fair trial is
denial of justice.38

If the irregularity or omission referred to in either of the two sections occasions a failure of
justice, then the irregularity or omission is to be regarded as of material consequence in law.39

According to this section any error in framing of charges cannot be fatal to conviction unless the
accused had been prejudiced. In the present case, the prejudice to the accused was apparent
because neither they nor the trial Court nor the appellate Court were clear in their mind as to how
and under what clause of section 2 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, 40 the article
of food was adulterated. Under the circumstances, there was no adulteration at all. Both the trial
Court and the appellate Court did not apply their mind in respect of the aspect of adulteration and
rather they proceeded on a wrong basis that “Dal Bhiji” was adulterated, only because the Public
Analyst in its report had held it to be so.41

Conclusion

The Code has carefully classified certain kinds of errors and expressly indicates how they are to
be dealt with. In every such case the Court is bound to give effect to the express commands of
the Legislature. There is no scope for further speculation. The only class of cases in which the
Courts are free to reach a decision is that for which no express provision is made.

The Code is a Code of Procedure and, like all procedural law, is designed to further the ends of
justice and not to frustrate them by the introduction of endless technicalities. The object of the

38
Krishna Murthy v Abdul Subhan, (1965) 1 Cr LJ 565
39
Basha v State of Mysore, (1969) 1 Mys LJ 398
40
Now repealed by the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (34 of 2006).
41
Pritam Lal v State and MCD, (1980) 1 FAC 392 at 395, 396 (Del).
 P a g e | 19

Code is to ensure that an accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-established
and well-understood lines that accord with our notions of natural justice.

If he does, if he is tried by a competent Court, if he is told, and clearly understands, the nature of
the offence for which he is being tried, if the case against him is fully and fairly explained to him
and he is afforded a full and fair opportunity of defending himself, then, provided there is
“substantial” compliance with the outward forms of the law, mere mistakes in procedure, mere
inconsequential errors and omissions in the trial are regarded as venal by the Code and the trial is
not vitiated unless the accused can show substantial prejudice. That, broadly speaking, is the
basic principle on which the Code is based.