Proceedings in wrong place

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana

   Supreme Court of India 30 Sep 2020 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.

   On this section: Provides that no finding, sentence or order shall be set aside merely on the ground that inquiry, trial or other proceedings took place in a wrong sessions division, district, subdivision or other local area, unless such error has occasioned a failure of justice. Court held this does not save proceedings void under Section 461(l).

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State of Bihar

   Supreme Court of India 31 Jan 2017 Binding (SC) - Landmark precedent on appellate retrial powers Reportable Criminal Appeal Nos. 119-122 of 2017 (Supreme Court of India) - Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The power to order retrial under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an exceptional power to be exercised only when the appellate court is satisfied that: (a) the trial was undertaken by a court lacking jurisdiction, or (b) the trial was vitiated by serious illegality or irregularity occasioning failure of justice, or (c) there was a misconception of the nature of proceedings such that there was no real trial. Mere procedural lapses or irregularities in investigation or conduct of trial, without demonstrable miscarriage of justice, are insufficient to order retrial. The appellate court must independently evaluate evidence and arrive at its own conclusions on guilt or innocence rather than remitting to trial court merely because procedural defects exist. De novo trial is a last resort remedy reserved for exceptional circumstances and must be guided by the demand of justice, balancing the accused's right to fair and speedy trial against societal interest in prosecution of serious crimes.

   On this section: Error or irregularity in procedure - referenced regarding legislature's approach to procedural defects

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.