26. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to several judgments and found that a direction for a re-trial/de novo trial should be a last resort and that too only when such a course becomes indispensable. Thus, it becomes clear that if the accused is unable to show the failure of justice, a direction for re-trial/de novo trial cannot be granted. This Court is of the opinion that the failure on the part of the Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to mark the documents produced by the Respondent no.1 as exhibits, at worse can be termed as an error/omission/irregularity but, there is nothing to show that the same occasioned failure of justice. The Appellate Court was fully justified in holding that the Applicant failed to demonstrate prejudice caused to him. The applicant failed to raise any objection to the documents, produced on record on behalf of Respondent no.1. Even at the stage of final arguments and judgments, no such objection was raised. In fact, the Counsel representing the Applicant referred to the documents produced by the Respondent-Bank by cross-examining the witness of Respondent no.1. The said documents were put to the Applicant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is evident that the Application cannot succeed in seeking a direction of retrial/de novo trial by merely referring to Rules 33 and 34 of Chapter VI of the Criminal Manual or Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.
