As per case facts, the appellants were convicted for criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption charges related to fraudulent bank transactions that occurred decades prior. During the Supreme Court appeal, a ... plea of juvenility was raised for one appellant, and a failure to comply with Section 313 CrPC was argued for all. The trial court convicted the appellants, and the High Court affirmed, leading to the appeal. The question arose whether the trial was vitiated due to the mechanical, non-specific questioning of the accused under Section 313 CrPC and whether the finding of juvenility for one appellant would affect the conviction. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the mechanical recording of statements under Section 313 CrPC, without putting specific incriminating evidence to the accused, was a serious irregularity causing grave prejudice and vitiated the trial. Given the long passage of time (over four decades), a remand was not feasible, and therefore, the conviction and sentence of all appellants were set aside, granting them the benefit of doubt. The juvenile appellant's conviction was also set aside on the ground of juvenility.