R. Dayal, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision by two (sic) order of Civil and Sessions (sic)rejecting their revision (sic)n under Section 426, IPC. (sic)n in revision is that charged along with (sic)read with Section 149 (sic)They were not (sic) 426, IPC.
(2.) IT is (sic)ir conviction (sic)Reliance is (sic)Punjab (1) (sic)desh(2). (sic) reger (sic) of observations. He considered non -framing of a charge to be a breach of fundamental provisions concerning the mode of trial and therefore sufficient to invalidate the trial. This would appear from para. 97 of the report. Considering the effect of Section 535, Code of Criminal Procedure validating the trial which otherwise might be invalid, he observed at page 60. It is the provisions of Section 535 to which reference must be made in order to ascertain whether that which was invalid shall be deemed to be valid, unless the court was satisfied that there had been a failure of justice. I regard with concern, if not with dismay, a too liberal application of its provisions to all cases in which there is an absence of a charge, although a charge ought to have been framed. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to when this provisions of Section 535 will or will not be applicable.
(3.) THE facts of each case, as they arise, will have to be carefully considered in order to decide that which was prima facie 'invalid' is deemed to be valid by virtue of its provisions. There may be cases where the omission to frame a charge was merely a technical defect in which case Section 535 would apply. On the other hand, there may be cases where failure to frame a charge affects the mode of trial or it is such a substantial contravention of the provisions of the Code relating to the framing of charges that prejudice may be inferred at once and the conviction which was 'prima facie' invalid continued to be so.;