JUDGMENT D.P. Sengupta, J.: All the aforesaid four revisional applications have been preferred before this Court challanging the same order dated 16.9.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Barasat in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1996 thereby setting aside the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.1.96 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrackpore in G.R. Case No. 3601/1983. C.R.R. No. 954/2001 and C.R.R. No. 955/2001 have been preferred by the C.B.I. against the aforesaid order and the other two revisional applications being CRR No. 2912/2000 and CRR No. 2709/2000 have been preferred by the two accused persons. Since similar point of law is involved in the aforesaid four revisional applications, those are taken up for disposal analogously. 2. The two accused persons namely, Mrinal Kanti Ghosh and Bhabesh Chowdhury were put up on trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Barrackpore to meet a charge under sections 120B/408/471/477A of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of the trial the accused persons were found guilty of the offences under sections 408/471/477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted thereunder. Each of them was sentenced to suffer RI. for 2 years for the offence under section 408 I.P.C. RI. for 1 year for the offence under section 471 I.P.C., RI. for 2 years for the offence under section 477A I.P.C. and RI. for 2 years for the offence under section 120B I.P.C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Challenging the aforesaid judgement and order of conviction and sentence two separate appeals were preferred by the two accused persons before the learned Sessions Judge, North 24 Parganas at Barasat. When the appeal was taken up for hearing by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Barasat it was argued by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defence that the charge framed against the accused persons in this case was defective as the said charge was framed in violation of the provision of section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the charge was defective, the order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. In the present case the accused persons were charged for entering into a criminal conspiracy during the period May, 1981 to November, 1982 and in pursuance of the said conspiracy they committed criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs. Since the charge was defective, the order of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. In the present case the accused persons were charged for entering into a criminal conspiracy during the period May, 1981 to November, 1982 and in pursuance of the said conspiracy they committed criminal breach of trust to the tune of Rs. 41,000/- of the I.S.I. Calcutta by showing false disbursement of salary to the employees. So the learned Judge, on being satisfied that the period during which the alleged offence was committed was beyond the period of 12 months, was of the view that the charge framed against the accused persons was a defective charge as the said charge was framed in violation of the provision of section 212(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the same time was of the view that such defect in framing of charge is curable and the same cannot vitiate the trial. But although the learned Judge was of the view that such defect in the framing of charge is curable and the same cannot vitiate the trial, the learned Judge decided to send back the matter on remand to the learned Magistrate with a direction for holding a de novo trial after framing fresh charge in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Ranjan Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the C.B.I. submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having himself found that such defect in framing of charge is curable and the same cannot vitiate the trial, should not have remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for holding a de novo trial after framing a fresh charge. The learned Judge should have decided the appeals on merits. Mr. Roy draws the attention of the court to the provision of section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which runs as follows:- "Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge.-(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. (2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may- (a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommended from the point immediately after the framing of the charge; (b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit: Provided that if the Court of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction". Referring to the aforesaid provision of section 464 Cr.P.C. Mr. Roy submits that an order for remand with a direction for holding a de novo trial after framing a fresh charge can only be justified if by such a defective charge any failure of justice is caused. According to Mr. Roy in the present case no failure of justice has been caused, because during trial the accused knew what he was being tried for. The allegations were explained to him fairly and clearly and the accused was given a full and fair chance to defend himself. The accused had a fair trial and during trial no objection was raised on behalf of the defence regarding any defect in framing of charge. So in such circumstances, according to Mr. Roy, it cannot be said that there is any failure of justice and in absence of such failure of justice the learned Judge should not have remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for holding a de novo trial and the learned Judge should have disposed of the appeals on merits. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the accused-opposite parties submits that by such defective framing of charge the accused persons were seriously prejudiced thereby causing a total failure of justice. According to the learned Advocate of the accused/o.p. the learned Additional Sessions Judge was very much justified in setting aside the order of conviction and sentence, but in stead of sending the matter back on remand for holding a de novo trial, he should have acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed against them. According to the learned Advocate of the accused/o.p. the learned Additional Sessions Judge was very much justified in setting aside the order of conviction and sentence, but in stead of sending the matter back on remand for holding a de novo trial, he should have acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed against them. It is the further contention of the learned Advocate of the O.P. that although such a point of defect in framing of charge was not taken in the trial court, there is no bar in taking such point for the first time in the court of appeal or revision. 6. I have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the respective parties. I have also perused the judgement and order of both the courts below. The only point which is to be decided in the present applications is whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in sending the matter back to the learned Magistrate for holding a de novo trial on the ground that the charge framed against the accused persons was defective one as the said charge was framed in violation of the provision of section 212(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 464 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that any finding, sentence or order of any court of competent jurisdiction can be said to be invalid on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge only if, in the opinion of the court, a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby. So, the only question is about the prejudice and the real test is whether the accused has been prejudiced. The question whether such error or omission has or has not ended in a failure of justice is a question off act and the same will depend on the facts of each case. In deciding such a question one should not stick to mere technicalities and should consider whether accused had a fair trial. In the present case it is evident that the accused knew from the very beginning what he was being tried for. The main facts, sought to be established against the accused, were explained to him clearly and he was given a full chance to defend himself. No objection to the nature of charge was raised by the accused at the stage of framing of charge and even during the trial. The main facts, sought to be established against the accused, were explained to him clearly and he was given a full chance to defend himself. No objection to the nature of charge was raised by the accused at the stage of framing of charge and even during the trial. This is sufficient to indicate that the accused persons were fully satisfied and knew from the very beginning what he was being tried for and what was alleged against him. In my considered view, no prejudice was caused to the accused by such defect in framing of charge. In absence of any failure of justice the learned Judge should not have sent back the matter on remand with a direction for holding a de novo trial and instead of that he should have disposed of the appeals on merits. 7. In view of the discussions made above I find sufficient merit in the submissions made by Mr. Roy, learned Advocate of the C.B.I. Accordingly I allow the revisional applications preferred by the C.B.I. being C.R.R. No. 954/2001 and 955/2001. The impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Barasat in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1 and 4 of 1996 is hereby set aside. The learned Judge is directed to take up the aforesaid two appeals and to dispose of the same with utmost expedition, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order. In view of the aforesaid judgement passed by this court the other two revisional applications being C.R.R. No. 2709/2000 and C.R.R. No. 2912/2000 are hereby dismissed. The learned Judge is directed to proceed with the matter as directed above. CRR Nos. 954 & 955 of 2001 allowed. CRR Nos. 2912 & 2709 of 2000 dismissed.