Judgement cannot be quashed merely based on irregularity of procedure: Delhi High Court

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 09.11.2020 CRL. A. 619 2017 and CRL.M.A. 6306 2020 GULAM JILANI @ KALLU GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Appellant Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent Mr Kanhaiya Singhal Mr Prasanna and Mr Ajay Kumar Advocates. Mr Amit Gupta APP for State. AND CRL.A. 620 2017 & CRL.M.A. 34451 2019 CRL.M.A. 9008 2020 CRL.M.A. 9009 2020 && CRL.M.A. 9010 2020 SANDEEP Appellant GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent Respondent Mr Adit S. Pujari AdvocateMr Chaitanya Sundriyal and Ms Tusharika Mattoo Advocates. Mr Amit Gupta APP for State. CRL. A. 621 2017 and CRL.M.(BAIL)1794 2019 PRADEEP GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Appellant Respondent CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent Mr Kanhaiya Singhal Mr Prasanna and Mr Ajay Kumar Advocates. Mr Amit Gupta APP for State. CRL. A. 900 2017 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 249 2019 KHOKAN @ GUDDU STATEAdvocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant Appellant Respondent For the Respondent Mr Anwesh Madhukar and Ms Prachi Nirwan Advocates. Mr Amit Gupta APP for State. HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU VIBHU BAKHRU J The appellants have filed these appeals impugning a judgment dated 24.05.2017 passed by the learned ASJ 04 Rohini Courts whereby they were convicted for committing an offence punishable under Sections 392 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 was also charged with committing an offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted the appellants of all charges other than the charge of committing an offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC as the court did not believe that the prosecution had established that the goods recovered from the appellants were those that were stolen. Further the complainantresiled from his earlier statement that he had seen the accused Sandeep with the pistol. Before the court he testified that he had seen the said weapon in the hands of the accused Khokhan @ Gudduwhere they met the complainant and recorded his statementof his workers namely Krishan Ishwar @ Mintoo and Rajesh Kumar @ Bangali were sleeping on the duchhati in the office room. In addition two security guards named Arvind and Devnath were on duty outside the office. They were armed with lathis. He alleged that at about 02:00 am one person was seen bringing the two security guards inside the premises on a gunpoint. He brought the guards near them at the duchhati. He stated that the shutter of their office was open and both the security guards were inquiring from the said person as to why they were removing the goods. At that time they noticed that the said person was aged about 20 to 25 years. He was of a medium built and height and was wearing a black jacket. He pointed the pistol towards them and demanded that all of them to continue lie down where they were and threatened that he would shoot them if they did not do so. The complainant further stated that the three miscreants who were loading goods in the tempo in front of the office were also aged CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 between 20 and 25 years. He stated that while they were doing so another tempo which was driven by one Bansi arrived there for transporting goods to Rohtak. He stated that one of the miscreants took the keys of the said tempo and also brought Bansi to them. Thereafter the said miscreants took away three of their mobile phones with nos. 9312281758 9213565850 and 9215800964 as well as the mobile phone of the tempo driver Bansiwere apprehended by the Special Staff South District on the basis of a secret information. Inspector Naresh Kumartestified that on 17.02.2007 he had a secret information on the basis of which they had taken their positions at the given spot. He stated that at about 08:00 pm three of the accused namely Sandeep Khokhan @ Guddu and Gulam Jilani came to the spot on foot and had stood near the corner of the road CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 towards the forest. Five minutes later one Tata tempo 407 came to the spot from the direction of MB Road and had halted there. Two persons alighted from the said tempo including the accused Pradeep. Thereafter all the five persons proceeded towards the forest area. On being pointed out by the secret informer the four accused were apprehended. However their accomplice managed to escape. The accused were arrested in FIR No. 135 2007 under Sections 399 402 of the IPC registered with PS Okhla Industrial Area. He further stated that during the course of investigation relating to the said FIR the accused disclosed their involvement in a number of cases including the present case. On the basis of the disclosure statements certain recoveries were made. In all two sewing machines of the make Kajal twenty eight packets of Boroplus cream and three Power Link UPS were recovered. The Boroplus packets were allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused Pradeep one sewing machine and one Power Link Home UPS were recovered at the instance of the accused Gulam Jhilani one sewing machine was recovered at the instance of the accused Sandeep and one Power Link Home UPS was recovered at the instance of the accused Khokhan @ Guddu. On 19.02.2007 at about 07:20 pm information was received over telephone from the Special Staff that the accused had been arrested in FIR No. 135 07 registered with PS Okhla Industrial Area. Their disclosure statements had been recorded and recoveries had been made pursuant thereto. The said information was entered as DD CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 No. 62B. On receipt of the said DD the IO went to the office of the Special Staff South District New Delhi and collected a photocopy of the FIR bearing No. 135 07 under Sections 399 402 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 54 59 of the Arms Act 1959 registered with PS Okhla New Delhi on 17.02.2007. Along with the same he also collected copies of the arrest memos of the accused the photocopies of the disclosure statements pointing out memos of the accused person and seizure memos of the recovered articles and tempo bearing number DL 1LE 0041. The statement of one of the officials of the Special Staff was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. The production warrants were sought from the concerned court. The accused were then produced in court on 24.02.2007 and they were formally arrested. Their separate disclosure statements were recorded. On the same day the IO also filed an application for conducting the TIP of the accused but they refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. Thereafter the IO sought for police custody of the accused for a single day which was granted. The IO took the accused to the place of occurrence on 27.02.2007. He recorded the pointing out memo and also recorded the supplementary statements under Section 161 of the Cr.PC. The complainant and Ishwaridentified the accused as the persons who had committed the crime on 27.02.2007. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined twenty one witnesses. The defence did not examine any witnesses. The evidence of the witnesses that were at the spotat the material time are relevant and briefly noted 10. Krishan was examined as PW 6. He stated that in the intervening night of 16.01.2007 and 17.01.2007 he was present at the office of Om Transport Agency along with Rajesh Mintu and Sonu. All four were at the ground floor. Two security guards were also present. At about 2 2:15 a.m. two persons came upstairs along with the guards and one of those persons had a revolver in one hand and a sword in the other. The other person also had a sword in his hand. The two persons pointed the revolver and told him and the other persons to remain quiet. One driver named Bansi came with his tempo. The other persons brought Bansi upstairs and snatched the keys of the tempo. They also deflated the tyres of that tempo. Heidentified the four accused in court. He testified that the accused Pradeep had a revolver and sword and the accused Gulam had a sword in his hand. He stated that accused persons took some cartons of Boroplus aluminium karahi inverters and other cartons which he could not recall. The accused also took their mobile phones. In his cross examination he affirmed that he was not working at the said transport office and he would sleep there at night since the agency belonged to his unclewhere the fact of the sword was not recorded in the same. He stated that Bansi had come after about 15 CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 minutes after the accused persons had started loading the goods. He affirmed that Bansi was brought down from his tempo on knifepoint. He could not recall if he had stated this in his statement to the IO. He stated that Sonu informed the police on a mobile that he had borrowed from the neighbour and that person was present when the police was informed. He affirmed that he had seen the accused persons in court after the incident and not before that. 11. Arvind the security guard deposed as PW 7. He stated that in the intervening night of 16.01.2007 17.01 2007 he was on duty along with Devnath. At about 2 2:30 a.m. four persons came to the gate of the godown. One person had a revolver and pointed the same at him and Devnath and thereafter told them to take the four persons inside the godown. Inside the godown three workers were sleeping and they were awoken by the assailants. The assailants took their phones. One of the assailants took out a knife and threatened them that if they raised an alarm they would kill them. He stated that he could not identify the assailants as their faces were muffled. At this stage the learned PP cross examined PW 7 as he was resiling from his earlier statement. PW 7 affirmed that the person holding the revolver was wearing a black coloured jacket. At the time of the incident Sonu Krishna Ishwar and Rajesh were sleeping on the second floor of the godown. He affirmed that Bansi a tempo driver came there and his mobile was also taken away by the assailants. He affirmed that he had told the police that he could identify the assailants but could not do so anymore due to lapse of time. CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 12. Bansi Lal deposed as PW 9. He that on 16.01.2007 17.01.2007 he had come to Mangolpuri at Om Transport for loading parchune in his tempo at about 2 2:30 a.m. Two persons asked him to come down from his tempo. One of them had a knife and one had a revolver. They took him to the roof of the agency where there is one room. There a blanket was put on him and they snatched his mobile. The chowkidar was also present there. In his cross examination by the PP he affirmed that the persons who asked him to get down from the tempo were about 20 to 25 years of age. One of their associates was inside the agency when they took him inside. He was wearing a black jacket. He could not identify the accused present in court on the day of his deposition. In his cross examination he stated that he had not seen the accused persons present in court prior to the date of his deposition. 13. Sonudeposed as PW 10. He stated that in the intervening night of 16.01.2007 17.01.2007 he along with three of his workers namely Krishan Rajesh and Ishwar were sleeping on the duchatti of the transport agency. Two security guards were on duty outside the office. At about 2 2:10 am he heard one of the guards saying “why you are loading goods”. He woke up and saw that one person was bringing both the security guards on the duchatti towards him on gunpoint had furnished bills GR which were seized by ASI Kewal Singh and the seizure memo was prepared. However the said documents do not clearly established the identity of the goods in question. It is also relevant to CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 note that none of the said documents pertain to Om Transport Agency. Ex.PW5 2 is the consignor‟s copy of a document generated by Krishna Brothers Transport Company and it mentions the number of packages as 23 and the contents as “cosmetic Boroplus”. The weight is mentioned as 230 Kgs. Ex.PW5 1 is a cash credit memo issued by M s B.C. & Sons for 8160 pieces of “BORO PLUS AN.CREAM 19 GM” and 1680 pieces of “BORO PLUS AN. CREAM 40 GM”. Ex.PW5 3 is a document generated by Krishna Transport Company Titu) indicating the name of the consignee as self. The said document refers to three Bgs of “EL Wire”. Ex.PW5 5 is a retail invoice cash memo bill of Powercell Electronics in respect of three separate articles including 24 pieces of “Home UPS 600 VA”. Ex.PW5 6 is a document generated by Krishna Transport Companyin respect of “Fourty Two Katta Alu Kadhai”. The name of the sender is referred to as “Keshav Kumar C o Duli Chand Om Prakash” and the name of the consignee is referred to as “Garg Bartan Bhandar”. The said document also mentions that it is a driver‟s copy. Ex.PW5 7 is a document generated by Lion Transport Co. mentioning the description of the goods as “S.Machine”. Ex.PW5 8 is a document captioned as a “repairing bill” issued by M s Dhawan Electronics in respect of 10 machines also does not inspire any confidence. This is for the reason that the number of persons disclosed to be involved in commission of the crime does not conform to the number of persons alleged to have committed the robbery. Further the goods allegedly robbed and those as disclosed in the disclosure statement are also not the same. In the disclosure statements of the accused goods such as speakers DVD Players are also mentioned and it is not anybody‟s case that the said goods were robbed on the date of the incident. 22. The accused Sandeep was also charged with committing an offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC. However since none of the witnesses had identified the accused Sandeep wielding a pistol country made katta the Trial Court found that there was no evidence to convict him for committing an offence punishable under CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 Section 397 of the IPC. Accordingly the court acquitted him of the said charge. This Court finds no fault in the said decision as well. 23. To be noted the State has not preferred any appeal against the accused being acquitted of an offence under Section 411 of the IPC and the accused Sandeep being acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC. Thus in substance the Trial Court‟s finding that the prosecution had not proved the recovery of stolen articles beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused Sandeep had used a deadly weapon in committing the robbery has been accepted by the State. the IPC. 24. The only question that remains to be addressed is whether there is sufficient evidence to establish that the appellants were involved in committing the offence of robbery punishable under Section 392 of 25. Mr Pujari learned counsel appearing for the accused Sandeep the appellant in CRL.A. 620 of 2017) submitted identification of the accused person in court could not be relied upon because it was not corroborated by any independent evidence. He stated that none of the witnesses had described the accused or provided any evidence as to their identity prior to their identification in court and therefore their deposition in court identifying the accused was insufficient to convict them. Next he submitted that the Trial Court had erred in drawing an adverse inference on the count that the accused had not participated in the TIP. He submitted that the accused CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 had given a justifiable reason for not doing so as they had been shown to the witnesses in the police station as well as in the Rohini Court Complex. He submitted that this was evident from the fact that the IO had moved an application for their TIP on the same day when they were produced in court. He submitted that this would clearly indicate that the witnesses who were to identify the accused were present in the court at the time when they were produced and had seen them. He stated that although the faces of the accused for the TIP may have been muffled but they were brought to the lock up and from there to the court room and during this period their faces were not muffled. Thus the witnesses had the opportunity to see their faces. He relied on the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in State v. Sandeep: CRL. L.P. 620 2019 wherein this Court had observed that if an accused person has a justifiable reason to refuse TIP no adverse inference can be drawn. He further stated that the accused were also shown to PW 10 and PW 13 subsequent to the TIP proceedings and therefore their testimony identifying the accused in court could not be relied upon. 26. Next he submitted that the entire procedure adopted by the investigation agency of filing an application under Section 267 of the Cr.PC for production of the accused and for the purposes of interrogating them formally arresting them and conducting their TIP was contrary to the provisions of law. He submitted that powers under Section 267 of the Cr.PC could be used only when the accused person was required to answer before a court to a charge or for any CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 proceedings against him or to examine such person as a witness. He relied upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Harshad S. Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 24 DRJ 392 in support of his contention that the police could not use the procedure under Section 267 of the Cr.PC for ensuring the attendance of an accused in one case in order to arrest him in another case. 27. Mr Madhukar learned counsel appeared for Khokhan @ Guddu the appellant in CRL.A. 900 2017) contended that the present case was a blind case and the prosecution had no leads to apprehend the persons involved in committing the said offence. He stated that in the said circumstances the appellants had been falsely implicated and articles alleged to have been recovered from them were planted. He read the testimonies of various witnesses and contended that their testimonies could not be relied upon to establish that the appellants were involved in committing the alleged offence. 28. Mr Singhal learned counsel appearing for Gulam Jilani @ Kallu and Pradeep reiterated the contentions advanced by Mr Pujari and Mr Madhukar. He further submitted that even if the conviction of the appellants were upheld the sentence awarded to them was severe and the Trial Court had overlooked the mitigating circumstances. He submitted that the appellants were of a very young age they had no other criminal antecedents as they had been acquitted in all other cases and had minor children and families to support. CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 29. Mr Pujari‟s contention that the procedure adopted by the investigating agency of filing an application under Section 267 of the Cr.PC for production of an accused before the learned MM their formal arrest and the request for conducting the TIP was contrary to the provisions of law and therefore the appellants are liable to be acquitted is unpersuasive. It is contended that the provisions of Section 267 of the Cr.PC cannot be invoked for producing the accused before the court for the purposes of arresting them in another case. 30. First of all no such contention was advanced before the Trial Court and the same is clearly an afterthought. Secondly even if the contention that the procedure under Section 267 of the Cr.PC ought not to have been invoked to produce the appellants before the learned MM for the purposes of their arrest in the present case is accepted the appellants have failed to establish that they were unfairly prejudiced by the same. In terms of Section 465 of the Cr.PC the impugned judgment convicting the appellants cannot be called into question on account of any irregularity in procedure unless it is established that the same resulted in the failure of justice. In the present case the procedure of producing the appellants before the learned MM for the purposes of this FIR and arresting them when they were produced has not resulted in failure of justice in any manner. 31. The Trial Court had proceeded on the basis that an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the accused on account of their refusal to participate in the TIP. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that their refusal to participate in the TIP were justified as CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 they had been shown to the witnesses at the police station and in the court. However there is no evidence on record that the appellants were shown to the witnesses in the police station or in the court prior to the TIP proceedings. The TIP proceedings were conducted on 24.02.2007 and the appellants were specifically warned that their refusal to join the TIP proceedings may lead to drawing of an adverse inference against them. The appellants have not led any evidence in their defence to establish that they have been shown to the witnesses prior to the TIP proceedings. More importantly they have also not elicited any evidence to the aforesaid effect from any of the witnesses who had identified them. None of the said witnesses had been specifically asked whether they had seen the accused prior to the TIP proceedings. 32. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses PW 6 PW 7 PW 9 PW 11 PW 12 PW 13 and PW 10 for the purposes of identifying the appellants as the offenders who were involved in committing the robbery on the date of the incident 33. PW 6 had identified the accused Pradeep and the accused Gulam Jilani as two of the accused who were involved in committing the robbery. He had stated that the accused Pradeep was carrying a sword in hand and a revolver in the other and the accused Gulam had a sword in the hand. His testimony was not accepted by the Trial Court as it was even doubted whether he was present at the spot. PW 6 was not employed with the Transport Agency in question and had no concern with it. He was a nephew of the owner. There is no reason for CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 him to be present at the spot at the given time. Furthermore his testimony is materially inconsistent with the testimony of the other witnesses. None of the other witnesses have testified that the accused Pradeep and accused Gulam Jilani were wielding swords. He had also testified that at the material time he was working for another transporter named Laxmi Pandit and his place of work was about one kilometer from the office of Om Transport Agency. In his statement recorded on the date of the incidenthe had not alleged that the accused were wielding swords. He testified that he had seen the accused in court for the first time after the date of the incident. He was examined on 16.12.2011 which was almost five years after the date of the incident. Thus the Trial Court rightly ignored his testimony for the purposes of identification of the accused. 34. PW 7 had categorically stated in his examination in chief that he “cannot identify the assailants as they were muffled faces”. He was cross examined by the learned APP. In his cross examination he conceded that he had told the police that he could identify the assailants if shown to him. However he volunteered that he could not identify the assailants due to lapse of time. Clearly his testimony can be of little assistance to the prosecution insofar as the identification of the accused are concerned. 35. PW 9 testified that he had come to Mangolpuri at Om Transport Agency for loading some goods on his tempo. He stated that the two accused had asked him to alight from his tempo one of them was carrying a knife and the other was carrying a revolver. They had CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 put a blanket on his head and he categorically stated that he could not identify those persons. He was cross examined by the learned APP. However he was firm in his stand that he could not identify the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was not doing to so due to fear. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused he categorically stated that he had not seen the accused present in the court on the day of the incident. 36. PW 11 also did not support the prosecution‟s case entirely. He did not identify the accused Sandeep Pradeep or Gulam Jilani. He stated that their faces were covered with a cloth. However he did identify the accused Khokhan to be one of the persons who was involved. He alleged that Khokhan had shown him a country made pistol. However it is not the prosecution‟s case that the accused Khokhan was wielding any firearm. He was cross examined and in his cross examination he denied the suggestion that the accused Pradeep Sandeep and Gulam had accompanied the accused Khokhan. He also denied the suggestion that their description was matching the description of the robbers who had accompanied the accused Khokhan on the said date. He further denied the suggestions that he had not deliberately identified them because he was threatened or because of lapse of time or that he had been won over by all the accused persons other than the accused Khokhan. 37. PW 12identified all the accused in Court. He also testified that the accused Khokhan was carrying a country made pistol and had threatened them with it. However he could not CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 state which of the accused was carrying a knife. However it is also important to state that he testified that one or two persons had covered their faces. He also stated that he could not identify the pistol if it was shown to him. 38. PW 13 identified all the accused. He identified the accused Khokhan as the person who was carrying the weaponbut he denied that he could identify the other accused who were associates of the accused Khokhan and Gulam. In his cross examination he was confronted with the statement recorded on 27.02.2007 and he identified the accused Pradeep and Sandeep. He stated that he had not done so earlier because of lapse of memory. 39. PW 10 identified all the accused. However he did not support the prosecution‟s case that the accused Pradeep was carrying a pistol. He stated that the accused Khokhan was carrying the pistol. It is seen from the above that four witnesses had identified the accused Khokhan to be one of the perpetrators of the offence. The accused Gulam Jilani has been specifically identified by PW 10 as well as by PW 13. The accused Sandeep and Pradeep were identified by PW 10. PW 13 had also identified them albeit in his cross examination by the learned APP. Even if PW 13‟s testimony insofar as the identification of the accused Sandeep and Pradeep is ignored the testimony of PW 10 is unambiguous and he had clearly identified the said accused. Considering the above coupled with the fact that the appellants had CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 declined joining the TIP this Court finds no fault in the decision of the Trial Court in accepting that the prosecution had established that the appellants had been identified as the persons involved in committing the crime. In view of the above this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment convicting the appellants of committing an offence punishable under Section 392 of the IPC. However this Court is unable to concur with the view that the appellants deserved no leniency. None of the appellants had been convicted of any offence prior to the impugned judgment. This Court has also been informed that they have been acquitted in all other cases. The appellants were very young at the material time. All of the appellants have minor children and their families to support. 42. Considering the above this Court considers it apposite to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants to four years of rigorous imprisonment along with the fine of ₹3 000 each and in the event of failure of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. It is so directed. 43. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications are also disposed of. NOVEMBER 09 2020 VIBHU BAKHRU J CRL. A. Nos. 619 620 621& 9017 

Summary: In a recent judgement dealing with the matter of robbery, the High Court of Delhi held that irregularity in a procedure cannot be a basis for challenging a judgement if it is not established that such an irregularity resulted in failure of justice. The single judge bench consisting of J. Vibhu Bakhru, in the matter of Gulam Jilani @ Kallu and Others v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [CRL. A. 619/2017 and CRL.M.A. 6306/2020] shed light upon reasonable doubt, TIP and Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedural, 1973. The appellants in this matter were previously convicted by the Trial Court for committing an offence punishable under Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years along with Rs.3,000/- fine each ,the default of which would attract an additional 3 months of simple imprisonment. The appellants were originally charged under Section 392/411/34 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted them under all charges except Section 392, IPC, as the court held that the prosecution had not established that the good recovered from the appellants were those that were stolen. Further, it was observed that the complainant, who claimed to be the eyewitness, had various inconsistencies in his statements. In the view of the patchy evidence relating to the goods recovered from the accused, the Trial Court had acquitted the appellants under Section 411 of the IPC, stating that “the prosecution had failed to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the articles recovered from the possession of the accused were the same articles that were robbed. The court reasoned that the articles recovered were in small quantity; there were no identification marks on the recovered articles and the same were readily available in the market. The said reasoning cannot be faulted”.  The present appeal was filed in order to impugn the decision of the Trial Court. While the appellants did not contest about whether the robbery itself had been committed or not, they argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the said offence, as their testimonies were inconsistent. Further, the appellants, relying on State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Sandeep [CRL L.P. 620/2019], argued that these testimonies are also unreliable as the accused were shown to the witnesses in the police station, prior to the TIP proceedings. The counsel for the appellants, relying on Harshad S. Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(1992) 24 DRJ 392], also argued that the police could not use the procedure under Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. for ensuring the attendance of the accused in one case in order to arrest him in another case. The HC, though agreeing with this argument, found that since no such contention was advanced before the Trial Court, it was clearly an afterthought. Adding to this, the court also held that “even if the contention that the procedure under Section 267 of the Cr.PC ought not to have been invoked to produce the appellants before the learned MM for the purposes of their arrest in the present case, is accepted, the appellants have failed to establish that they were unfairly prejudiced by the same. In terms of Section 465 of the Cr.PC, the impugned judgment convicting the appellants cannot be called into question on account of any irregularity in procedure unless it is established that the same resulted in the failure of justice”.