Technical procedural errors in criminal proceedings do not affect the merits of acquittal when no substantive evidence is presented against the accused.

ORDER

Dated : 18^th February, 2026

The accused persons in C.C.546/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kayamkulam, who are also the respondents 1 to 9 in Crl.Appeal No.172/2019, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mavelikara filed this Crl.Revision Petition under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, setting aside the order of acquittal and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication.

2. C.C.546/2014 was originated on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent before the learned Magistrate alleging offences punishable under Sections 354 , 354A, 509, 506(i) 323 and 149 IPC. As per judgment dated 8.8.2019, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the petitioners under Sections 255 (1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the learned Magistrate acquitting the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent/complainant preferred Crl.Appeal 172/2019 before the learned Sessions Judge. As per the judgment dated 27.2.2021 the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment against which the petitioners preferred this Revision. The learned Sessions Judge remanded the matter to the Magistrate pointing out certain procedural irregularities committed by him.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there were no serious irregularities in the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate and as such, according to him, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in remanding the matter. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and to uphold the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/complainant prayed for sustaining the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

4. As noted above, in this case the prosecution was initiated on the basis of a private complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 149 , 354, 354A, 509, 506(i) and 323 IPC. Since the offences alleged in the complaint includes warrant cases, the procedure to be followed is as prescribed in Chapter XIX-B of Cr.P.C. On a perusal of the trial court records it is seen that the learned Magistrate has correctly followed the procedure prescribed under Chapter XIX-B and framed the charge under Section 246 Cr.P.C. However, the successor Magistrate who pronounced the judgment omitted to note that it was a warrant trial case instituted otherwise than on a police report. It was in the above context that he mistakenly stated in paragraph 4 of the judgment that “particulars of offence was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.” Similarly, in paragraph 5 of the judgment it was stated that PWs 1 to 4 were examined on the side of the complainant, though actually PWs 1 to 5 were examined. Though the learned Magistrate has framed charges for the offences under Sections 447, 354, 509, 506(ii), 323 read with 34 IPC, in the judgment the sections were stated as 447, 354, 509, 506(i), 323 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, in the judgment, while raising the points for determination, instead of raising a point under Section 506 (ii), the point raised was under Section 506 (i) IPC. Similarly in paragraph 25, the accused were acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C, instead of under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. It was in the light of the above mistakes the learned Sessions Judge ordered to remand the matter for fresh disposal.

5. From the proceedings it is revealed that the learned Magistrate before whom the trial was conducted has followed the correct procedure in this case i.e., the procedure for a warrant trial case otherwise than on a police report. It appears that the learned Magistrate who disposed of the case was his successor. Therefore, it is evident that the successor Magistrate failed to note that her predecessor in office followed the procedure of the warrant trial case and inadvertently stated in the judgment that the particulars o