#procedural irregularity

The Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the death sentences of Pardeep and Sagar, holding that the trial court’s failure to present all incriminating material under Section 313 CrPC is a curable irregularity. It ordered a fresh sentencing hearing, indicating that such procedural lapses do not automatically sustain capital punishment.

Himachal Pradesh High Court clarifies that failure to comply with Section 154(1) and (3) CrPC before filing a Section 156(3) application is a procedural lapse, not a jurisdictional flaw. The ruling reinstates a Magistrate’s order directing FIR registration, emphasizing that technical irregularities cannot vitiate substantive justice for complainants.

The Bombay High Court clarifies that procedural non-compliance in trying a criminal case and its counter case simultaneously does not invalidate proceedings unless the accused demonstrates actual prejudice. Section 465 CrPC operates as a curative provision, shielding convictions from technical defects when substantive justice is intact - a critical safeguard for prosecutors and trial courts navigating complex familial disputes.

CESTAT Hyderabad rules that minor invoice irregularities - including incorrect billing address and failure to register as an Input Service Distributor - do not invalidate Cenvat credit if the services were actually received and service tax duly paid. This reinforces the principle that substantive compliance trumps technical non-compliance in tax credit claims, benefiting multi-unit businesses relying on centralized invoicing.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a defendant’s defence cannot be struck off under CPC Order 9 Rule 7 merely due to procedural irregularities by the court, unless the defendant is at fault. The court restored the defence upon payment of Rs. 20,000 costs, emphasizing that denial of a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice.

Madras High Court rules that failure to file an affidavit under CrPC 156(3) is a mere procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, and does not invalidate the FIR or charge sheet. The court held that a prima facie case of poisoning and criminal conspiracy suffices to proceed to trial, reinforcing that technical lapses cannot override substantive justice.

Bombay High Court holds that interim orders tainted by procedural illegality cannot be stayed, reinforcing that courts must not perpetuate unlawful judicial acts.