Section 465 of Criminal Procedure code 1973, lays down that 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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. In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.
In A. Devindran v. State of T.N., AIR 1998 SC 2821, it was observed : “The sole object of Section 465 is to secure justice by preventing the invalidation of a trial already held, on the ground of technical breaches of any provision in the Code causing no prejudice to the accused. But by no stretch of imagination the aforesaid provisions can be attracted to a situation where a Court having no jurisdiction under the code does something or passes an order in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Code. In view of the interpretation that after a criminal proceeding is committed to a Court of Session it is only the Court of Session which has the jurisdiction to tender pardon to an accused and the Chief Judicial Magistrate can be accepted and the evidence of the approver thereafter can be considered by attracting the provisions of Section 465 of the Code. The aforesaid provision cannot be applied to a patent defect of jurisdiction.