RATTIRAM & ORS. versus STATE OF M. P. THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 17-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 496 
RATTIRAM & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF M. P. THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
' ' 
(Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2012 
[DALVEER BHANDARI, T.S. THAKUR AND 
DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s. 193 - Effect and impact of not committing an accused 
in terms of s. 193 in cases where charge-sheet is filed u/ 
s.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes 
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and cognizance is directly 
0 taken by the Special Judge under the Act - Held: Special 
Court as constituted under 1989 Act is a Court of Session -
If cognizance is directly taken by the Special Court under the 
Act and an accused without assailing the same at the 
inception allows the trial to continue and invites a judgment 
E of conviction, he would not be permitted in law to question the 
same and seek quashment of the conviction on the ground 
that the Special Court had no jurisdiction or authority to take 
cognizance without the case being committed to it -1t is only 
when non-compliance has occasioned in 'failure of justice' or 
culminated in causation of prejudice to the accused that the 
F trial is vitiated - The objection relating to non-compliance of 
s. 193 which eventually has resulted in directly entertaining 
and taking cognizance by the Special Judge under the Act,, 
1989 does not vitiate the trial and on the said ground alone, 
the conviction cannot be set aside or there cannot be a 
. G direction of retrial - The decision rendered in **Bhooraji lays 
down the correct law - T!Je decisions rendered in ***Moly and 
****Vidyadharan did not note the decision in **Bhooraji, a 
binding precedent, and hence they are per incuriam. 
H 
496 
RATTIRAM & ORS. v. STATE OF M. P. THROUGH 
497 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
s.209 - Committal proceedings - Procedure of, in old 
A 
Code of Criminal Procedure and new Code of 1973 - Held: 
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, a full-fledged 
Magisterial enquiry was postulated in the committal 
proceeding and the prosecution was then required to examine 
all the witnesses at this stage itself - But, in the committal 
B 
proceedings in praesenti, the Magistrate is only required to 
see whether the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of 
Session - Because of the restricted role assigned to the 
Magistrate at the stage of commitment under the new Code, 
the non-compliance of the same and raising of any objection c 
in that regard after conviction attracts the applicability of the 
principle of 'failure of justice' and the convict-appellant 
becomes obliged in law to satisfy the appellate court that he 
has been prejudiced and deprived of a fair trial or there has 
been miscarriage of justice. 
D 
Criminal jurisprudence: 
Fair trial - Denial of - Held: A 'fair trial' is the heart of 
criminal jurisprudence - Denial of 'fair trial' is crucifixion of 
human rights - It is ingrained in the concept of due process 
E 
of law - While emphasising the principle of 'fair trial' and the 
practice of the same in the course of trial, it is obligatory on 
the part of the Courts to see whether in an individual case or 
category of cases, because of non-compliance of a certain 
provision, reversion of judgment of conviction is inevitable or 
F 
it is dependent on arriving at an indubitable conclusion that 
substantial injustice has in fact occurred. 
Procedural lapse and delay in conclusion of trial - Effect 
of - Held: There has to be a fair trial and no miscarriag& of 
justice and under no circumstances, prejudice should be 
G 
caused to the accused - Every procedural lapse or every 
interdict that has been acceded to and not objected at the 
appropriate stage would not get the trial dented or make it 
unfair- Treating it to be unfair would amount to an undesirable 
state of pink of perfection in procedure - The right of the 
H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A collective as well as the right of the victim springs to the 
' forefront and then it becomes obligatory on the part of the 
accused to satisfy the court that there has been failure of 
justice or prejudice has been caused to him - Unless the 
same is established, setting aside of conviction as a natural 
B corollary or direction for retrial as the third step of the 
syllogism solely on the said foundation would be an anathema 
to justice - One cannot also afford to treat the victim as an 
alien or a total stranger to the criminal trial - The criminal 
jurisprud

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.