What is Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Today, I will talk about the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. the State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 1288 of 2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed S. 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) that provides for when a finding or a sentence would be reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity. S. 465 is located in Chapter XXXV of CrPC that deals with irregular proceedings.

 

SECTION 465

 

Basically, S. 465 is divided into two parts.

 

a. “The general principle which is embodied in Section 465 CrPC is that a finding or order is not reversible due to irregularities unless a failure of justice is proved.”

b. “Sub-section (2) of Section 465 provides that while determining whether there has been a failure of justice, the appellate Court shall have regard to whether the objection regarding the irregularity could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceeding.”

 

In order to understand S. 465 in a better manner, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

Firstly, the Court noted that Section 465 deals with irregularity of complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial. It is “a broad residuary provision that covers all irregularities that are not covered” by other provisions. Further, there is no indication in S. 465 that it applies only to orders of conviction or acquittal.

 

Secondly, the Court observed that “Section 465 stipulates that the order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall not be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal on account of an irregularity of the proceedings before trial or any inquiry.” It was further observed that cognizance is a pre-trial or inquiry stage and hence, any irregularity in the cognizance order is covered within the ambit of S. 465.

 

Thirdly, the Court cautioned that under S. 465, “any and every irregularity or infraction of a procedural provision cannot constitute a ground for interference by a superior Court unless such irregularity or infraction has caused irreparable prejudice to the party and requires to be corrected at that stage itself, because such frequent interference by superior Court at the interlocutory stages tends to defeat the ends of Justice instead of serving those ends.”

 

Fourthly, the Court also explained that “Section 465 would also be applicable to challenges to interlocutory orders such as a cognizance order or summons order on the ground of irregularity of procedure. This interpretation is supported by sub-section (2) to Section 465 which states that while determining if the irregularity has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to whether the objection could or should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceeding.”

 

Fifthly, the Court clarified that Section 465(2) does not mean that “if the alleged irregularity is challenged at an earlier stage, the failure of justice is deemed to be proved. Even in such cases though, where the challenge is made before the trial begins, the party has the burden of proving a failure of justice. Further, even if the challenge is made before the trial begins, the Court still needs to determine if the challenge could have been made earlier.”

 

And lastly, the Court observed that “the test established for determining if there has been a failure of justice for the purpose of Section 465 is whether the irregularity has caused prejudice to the accused. No straitjacket formula can be applied. However, while determining if there was a failure of justice, the Courts could decide with reference to inter alia the stage of challenge, the seriousness of the offence charged, and apparent intention to prolong proceedings. It must be determined if the failure of justice would override the concern of delay in the conclusion of the proceedings and the objective of the provision to curb the menace of frivolous litigation.”

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

 

Those were the observations by the Court. In conclusion, following pertinent points emerge: -

 

a. S. 465 is a broad residuary provision that covers all irregularities in a finding or an order that are not covered by other provisions.

b. The irregularity alleged must cause irreparable prejudice to the party and occasion failure of justice.

c. The objective of Section 465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion of trial.

d. Section 465 CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as an order taking cognizance and summons order.

e. Section 465(2) does not indicate that it only covers challenges to pre-trial orders after the conclusion of the trial. And

f. The cardinal principle that guides Section 465(2) CrPC is that the challenge to an irregular order must be urged at the earliest.

 

Thus, I hope that the nature and the scope of S. 465 of CrPC is clear by now.