, J.

1. The present petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) initially came up for hearing before J. S. Sekhon, J. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the trial Court came to the conclusion that the procedure adopted for the trial, whether as a warrant case or summary case, was found to be unwarranted, the only course open was to acquit the accused and rectification of mistake in choosing one procedure against another and further trial would be abuse of the process of Court. Reliance in support of the above proposition was placed by the learned counsel on certain observations made by a learned single Judge of this Court in Pawan Kumar V/s. State of Haryana, 1989 (II) F. A. C.36. J. S. Sekhon, J. was of the view that it was always open to the trial Court to correct any defect of procedure and such a course upto facto did not justify an order of acquittal. The learned Judge expressed his disagreement with the dicta in Pawan Kumars case (supra) and referred the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. This is how this case has been placed before us.

2. To appreciate the q