Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission orirregularity
Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission orirregularity. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission irregularity. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission irregularity.
(1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry
or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.
Section 465, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 511 Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity Text carried over almost unchanged 94%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
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.
-
Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-6.pdf 2012-02-17. Crl A 223/2008. Dipak Misra 3-judge reportable. DATE-CHECK flagged 1996-08-31 (false positive: trial-court date in the body); the PDF is the named 17 Feb 2012 reportable. Non-committal to a Special Court is an irregularity; a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction is not reversed under CrPC 465 unless a failure of justice is shown. Moly/Vidyadharan treated as per incuriam of Bhooraji. Map crpc 465 + BNSS 511 successor (near-identical 0.9368). Do not pad crpc 193 or the SC-ST Act.
On this section: Non-committal to a Special Court is an irregularity; CrPC 465 bars reversal of a conviction by a competent court unless a failure of justice is shown (Rattiram).
-
Ajay Kr. Ghoshal Etc vs State of Bihar
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: Miscarriage of justice - referenced for understanding when serious irregularity affects trial validity
-
Sunita Bhagat vs Sebi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act creates two classes of persons: (i) those who commenced collective investment activities prior to 25.1.1995 ('proviso category') who may continue until obtaining registration under the regulations; and (ii) those who did not ('non-proviso category') who are absolutely barred from commencing such activities until obtaining registration. The bar for the non-proviso category is self-executing and operative from 25.1.1995 regardless of when regulations are framed. However, criminal prosecution for regulatory non-compliance (such as failure to apply for registration under Regulation 5) requires that the accused was a director/officer of the company at the time the specific breach occurred. A director who resigned before the deadline for compliance cannot be prosecuted for breaches arising on or after the resignation date. The complaint must clearly disclose whether the accused is charged as a non-proviso category violator (commencing activity without authority) or merely as an existing operator who failed to comply with procedural regulations. Absence of such clarity, combined with the accused having exited before the breach date, renders prosecution unsustainable.
On this section: Provision allowing reversal of conviction only if error has occasioned 'failure of justice'. Court held this applies to procedural omissions, not substantive defects in charge disclosure. Failure to disclose material facts of offence constitutes substantive defect, not procedural irregularity.
-
Sanichar Sahni vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person can be convicted of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC even if co-accused are not charged under the same section, provided: (a) there is credible evidence proving the accused conspired with others to commit an illegal act; (b) the accused was given fair notice and opportunity to defend against the conspiracy charge; (c) no actual prejudice resulting in failure of justice has been caused to the accused by any defect in charge framing; and (d) the conviction is supported by evidence led at trial. Defects in charge framing are not fatal to conviction unless the accused establishes real prejudice and demonstrates he did not receive a fair trial or understand the case against him.
On this section: Provides that convictions shall not be reversed for procedural errors unless actual failure of justice has occurred. Applied by Court in assessing defective charge framing.
-
Ambati Vijay Bhaskar vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Food Inspector, acting as a Gazetted Officer, follows proper procedure in purchasing, sealing, and transporting food samples, and the Public Analyst's report conclusively establishes that the food is adulterated and does not conform to prescribed standards, the conviction for selling adulterated food under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is sustainable. Procedural defects in trial procedure, such as failure to conduct a summary trial as mandated by Section 16(a) of the PFA Act, are curable under Section 465 CrPC if no prejudice is caused to the accused. Delay in requesting re-analysis of food samples does not deprive the accused of the right to challenge the original analysis, but the question of losing valuable rights does not arise when the application for re-analysis is made with substantial delay.
On this section: Curable defects in procedure - court held that procedural defect of not conducting summary trial was curable and caused no prejudice
-
State vs Lalit Narain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A reference under Section 432 Criminal Procedure Code can only be made when a case involves a question as to the validity of an Act or Ordinance, the determination of which is necessary for disposal of the case, and the court must be of opinion that such Act is invalid or inoperative but has not been so declared by the High Court or Supreme Court. The mere fact that an accused is mentally unfit to stand trial, lacks family support, or that care infrastructure is inadequate does not constitute grounds for reference under Section 432 CrPC. Instead, such situations must be dealt with under the comprehensive procedure provided in Sections 464-475 CrPC, which specifically address the trial of persons of unsound mind. Trial courts cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A CrPC or ask the High Court to exercise such powers; such powers are inherent to the High Court itself.
On this section: Provides the procedure in Court of Sessions for trying the fact of unsoundness and incapacity. The trial of insanity forms part of the trial before the Court, and necessary evidence must be taken before proceeding to a finding.
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.
Questions about Section 465
What have the courts held on Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (17 Feb 2012) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Non-committal to a Special Court is an irregularity; CrPC 465 bars reversal of a conviction by a competent court unless a failure of justice is shown (Rattiram). Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 465, section 465 CRPC, section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (17 Feb 2012).
What should I read with Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 511 (Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 465, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.