nothing fundamentally wrong with the charges framed against the appellants nor have the appellants been able to demonstrate that they suffered any prejudice on account of the alleged defects.

Supreme Court of India
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Author: .....J.
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Gyan Sudha Misra
 REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITION
 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 OF 2010
Sushil Ansal Appellant
 Versus
State Through CBI Respondent
(With Crl. Appeals No.598/2010, 599/2010, 600-602/2010, 604/2010, 605-
616/2010 and 617-627/2010)
159. Mr. Jethmalani next argued that the charges framed against the accused-appellants, Sushil and
Gopal Ansal were defective inasmuch as the same did not specify the days or period when the
offence took place nor even indicate the statutory provisions, rules and regulations allegedly violated
by the appellants or accuse the appellants of gross negligence which alone could constitute an
offence under Section 304A IPC. These defects, contended the learned counsel, had caused
prejudice to the appellants in their defence and ought to vitiate the trial and result in their acquittal. A similar contention, it appears, was urged by the appellants even before the High Court who has
referred to the charges framed against the appellants at some length and discussed the law on the
point by reference to Sections 211, 215 and Section 464 of the Cr.P.C. to hold that the charges were
reasonably clear and that no prejudice in any case had been caused to the appellants to warrant
interference with the trial or the conviction of the appellants on that ground. Reliance in support
was placed by the High Court upon the decision of this Court in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1956 SC 116) and several later decisions that have reiterated the legal position
on the subject. There is in our opinion no error in the view taken by the High Court in this regard.
Section 464 of the Cr.P.C. completely answers the contention urged on behalf of the appellants. It in
no uncertain terms provides that an error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any
misjoinder of charges shall not invalidate any sentence or order passed by a Court of competent
jurisdiction unless in the opinion of a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision a failure of justice
has in fact been occasioned thereby. The language employed in Section 464 is so plain that the same
does not require any elaboration as to the approach to be adopted by the Court. Even so the
pronouncements of this Court not only in Slaneys case (supra) but in a long line of subsequent
decisions place the matter beyond the pale of any further deliberation on the subject. See K.C.
Mathew v. State of Travancore-Cochin AIR 1956 SC 241, Gurbachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR
1957 SC 823, Eirichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1120, State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas
Shrinivas Nayak AIR 1982 SC 1249, Lallan Rai v. State of Bihar (2003) 1 SCC 268 and State (NCT of
Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600.
160. In Slaneys case (supra) Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court observed:
5...What it narrows down to is this. Is the charge to be regarded as a ritualistic
formula so sacred and fundamental that a total absence of one, or any departure in it
from the strict and technical requirements of the Code, is so vital as to cut at the root
of the trial and vitiate it from the start, or is it one of many regulations designed to
ensure a fair and proper trial so that substantial, as opposed to purely technical,
compliance with the spirit and requirements of the Code in this behalf is enough to
cure departures from the strict letter of the law ?
6. Before we proceed to set out our answer and examine the provisions of the Code,
we will pause to observe that the Code is a code of procedure and, like all procedural
laws, is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by the
introduction of endless technicalities. The object of the Code is to ensure that an
accused person gets a full and fair trial along certain well-established and
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/9513811/ 69
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...
161. To the same effect are the subsequent decisions of this Court to which we have referred to
above. Applying the test laid down in the said cases we have no hesitation in holding that there was
nothing fundamentally wrong with the charges framed against the appellants nor have the
appellants been able to demonstrate that they suffered any prejudice on account of the alleged
defects. The High Court has in our opinion taken a correct view on the question urged before which
does not call for any interference.