Crpc ppt final sindu.pptx final word

CONTENT

Introduction

Meaning of charge

The Purpose of Framing Charge

When charge may be framed

Contents of a Charge

Form and requirements

Alteration in Charge

Joinder of charges

Exceptions

Framing of charge

Conclusion

Biblography

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

TOPIC : PRINCIPLE OF FRAMING CHARGE

NAME :M.SINDUJA (H10042)

CLASS: V year “B”SECTION

Principles of Framing of Charges Page 1

Introduction:

One basic requirement of a fair trial in criminal cases is to give precise

information to the accused as to the accusation against him. This is vitally

important to the accused in the preparation of his defence. In all trials under the

Code the accused is informed of the accusation in the beginning itself. In case

of serious offences the Code requires that the accusations are to be formulated

and reduced to writing with great precision and clarity. This “charge”

Provisions relating to charge are aimed at giving full notice to the accused about

the offence of which he is charged. It gives the accused accurate and precise

information about the accusations made against him.1 Every charge under this

Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.

In the State v. Ajit Kumar Saha2 the material on record did not show a prima

facie case but the charges were framed by the Magistrate. Since there was no

application of mind by the Magistrate the order framing charges was set aside

by the High Court. It is a basic principle of law that before summoning a person

to face a charge and more particularly when a charge sheet is actually framed,

the court concerned must be equipped with at least prima facie material to show

that the person who is sought to be charged is guilty of an offence alleged

against him.3

In State of Karnataka v. Eshwaraiah4 two accused were separately charged for

committing murder in furtherance of common intention. In the charge framed

against one accused the name of the other was not mentioned but charges were

read over to each of the accused in presence of the other accused and the plea

has been recorded in the presence of each of the accused and their advocates. It

was held that there was no scope for misunderstanding part played by each

1 B.N. Srikantiah v. State of Mysore 2 1988 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 2 Cal 3 Nohar Chand v. State of Punjab 1984 Cr. LJ 886 (P&H) 4 1987 Cr. LJ 1658 (Karn)


accused and therefore the defect in framing of the charge was a mere

irregularity.

MEANING OF CHARGE:

Charge is an accusation made against a person in respect of an offence alleged

to have been committed by him.5 A charge is the first notice to the prisoner of

the matter whereof he is accused and which must convey to him with sufficient

clearness and certainty what the prosecution intends to prove against him and of

which he would have to clear himself.6 The basic requirement is that the charge

must be so framed as to give the accused person as fairly reasonable idea of the

case which he has to face and the validity of the charge must be determined by

the application of the test viz had the accused a reasonable sufficient notice of

the matter with which he was charged.7

Where an accused person is charged, along with others under Section 307/149

and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code but the others are acquitted and the

accused alone is convicted under Section 302 and 307, the absence of specific

charges against the accused under Section 302 and 307, is a very serious lacuna

in the proceedings and it materially prejudices the accused and his conviction

for those cannot be maintained.8

In Musa Khan v. State of Maharashtra the Additional Sessions Judge framed

charges against the accused persons under Section 149 and 395 of the Penal

Code. Since offence under Section 395 of the Penal Code comes into existence

only when act of dacoity is committed by five or more persons jointly the

questions of applying Section 149 was held to be mere surplusage. That is

5 Birichh Bhuian v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1120 6 Manna Lal v. State 1967 Cr LJ 1272; Shyam Sunder Ker v. State 1960 Cr LJ 310; Krishnan v. The State AIR

1958 LJ 516 7 Chittranjandas v. State of W.B. AIR 1963 SC 1696 8 Suraj Pal v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 419


where a charge under Section 395 of the Penal Code is framed no charge under

Section 149 for the same offence need be framed.

The Purpose of Framing Charge:

In the ruling of a four-Judge Bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.C.

Shukla v. State9. Justice Desai delivering a concurring opinion opined that ‘the

purpose of framing a charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear,

unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is

called upon to meet in the course of a trial’.

When charge may be framed:

In all warrant cases whether triable by a Court of Session or by a Magistrate, a

formal charge is required to be framed. Framing of Charge is, however, not

necessary in summons case. Similarly, it is not necessary to frame charge in

summary trials. At the stage of framing a charge, the court should consider the

materials placed before the court; there is a prima facie case against the

accused. The test to determine prima facie case depends upon the facts and

circumstances of each case.10

In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar11 after considering the leading cases on the

point, the Supreme Court laid down the following principles as to when the

charge should be framed –

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges

under Section 227of the Code to weigh the evidence for finding out

whether it’s a prima facie case or not. And for which the accused has

been made out;

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court the accused which has not

been properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a

charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the

facts of each case. By and large however if two views are equally

possible and the Judge should be satisfied with the evidence produced

9 C.B.I.,1980 Supplementary SCC 92 at page 150 and paragraph 110 10 Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra, AIR 1963 SC 1430: (1963) 2 CrLJ 397: (1964) 1 SCR 639; Union of

India v. Prafulla Kumar, AIR 1979 SC 366: (1979) 3 SCC 4: 1979 CrLJ 154; State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 (1977) 4 SCC 39: (1978) 1 SCR 257: 1977 CrLJ 1606. 11 AIR 1979 SC 366: (1979) 3 SCC 4: 1979 CrLJ 154: (1979) 3 SCR 1.


while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the

accused, he has all the right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code, the

totaleffect of the evidence and the document produced by the court, any

basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not

mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons

of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

Contents of a Charge

Sections 221 to 224 specify the particulars that should be stated in the

charge.Particulars are as follows:

Particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if

any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was

committed.

Statement of the offence with which the accused is charged.

Particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed, when

the particular of nature of the case do not give the accused sufficient notice of

the matter with which he is charged. A statement of law and the section of the

law against which the offence is said to have been committed. If the law

which creates the offence does not give it any specific name so much of the

definition of the offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the

matter with which he is charged. The previous convictions of the accused, if

any, where such conviction is sought to be proved at the trial. In case of

particular offences such as criminal breach of trust of dishonest

misappropriation of money, the dates between which the offence is alleged to

have been committed and the gross amount involved, together with such

particulars as may be necessary to give the accused notice of the manner in

which the offence was committed, should also be given.


Enumerate requirements and particulars which a valid charge should contain.

Looking to those provisions, it is clear that to be a valid charge; the following

requirements must be satisfied:12

(i) It must state the offence with which the accused is charged;

(ii) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the

offence should be described in the charge by that name only;

(iii) If the law which creates the offence does not give any specific name,

so much of the definition of the offence must be stated as to give the

accused notice of the matter with which he is charged;

(iv) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to

have been committed must be mentioned in the charge;

(v) It must be in writing;

(vi) It must be in the language of the court;

(vii) If the accused has been previously convicted of any offence, and by

reason of such previous conviction, is liable to enhanced punishment

or to punishment of a different kind for a subsequent offence, the fact,

date and place of the previous conviction must be stated in the charge;

(viii) It must give particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence

and the person against whom or the thing in respect of which the

offence was committed;

However, when the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or

dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, it

shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or describe the movable

property in respect of which and the dates between which the offence

is alleged to have been committed without specifying particular items

or exact items or exact dates, provided that the time included between

the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.13

(ix) When the nature of the case is such that the above particulars do not

give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is

charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the matter in

which the alleged offence was committed as will be sufficient for that

purpose;14

12 Sec. 211 13 Sec. 212 14 Sec. 213


(x) In every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed

to have been used in the sense attached to them by the law under

which such offence is punishable.15

A charge must be precise in its scope and particular in its details. Such

particulars should be stated in the charge as are reasonably sufficient to give the

accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. Whether or not sufficient

particulars have been mentioned in the charge must be decided with reference to

facts and circumstances of each case.16

Form and requirements

a) The charge should be precise but should give the necessary particulars

required by law.

b) Every charge shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.

c) The charge shall be written either in English or in the language of the

Court.

d) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a

separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately.

e) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have

been committed shall be mentioned in the charge.

f) The court framing charge should avoid all unnecessary words.

Abbreviations or recondite words should as far as possible be also avoided.

g) An omission, defect or error in the charge which does not prejudice or

mislead the accused and does not result in any failure of justice cannot be

regarded as material.

15 Sec. 214 16 Chittaranjan Das v. State of W.B; Kantilal v. State of Gujarath, AIR 1974 SC 222: (1974) 3 SCC 587: 1974 SCC 310; Main Pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 3292: 2010 CrLJ 4450: (2010)10 SCC 130.


Form No. 32

Charges

I. CHARGE WITH ONE HEAD

(a) I, (name and office of Magistrate, etc.), hereby charge you (name of

accused person) as follows:-

(b) That you, being a public servant in the..................... Department, directly

accepted from (state the name) gratification other than legal

remuneration, as a motive for forbearing to do an official act, and thereby

committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal

Code, and within the cognizance of this Court.

(c) And I hereby direct that you tried by this Court on the said charge.

(Signature and Seal of the Magistrate)

II. CHARGE WITH TWO OR MORE HEADS:

(a) I, (name and office of the sessions Judge, etc.) hereby charge you (name

of accused person) as follows:-

(b) First-That you, on or about the.............. day of.............. at...............

committed murder by causing the death of.............., and thereby

committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian penal

Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Session.

Secondly-That you, on or about the.............. day of............... at................

by causing the death of.............. committed culpable homicide not

amounting to murder, and thereby committed an offence punishable

under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of

the Court of Session.

(c) And I hereby direct that you be tried by the said Court on the said charge.

(Signature and seal of the Court)


Alteration in Charge:

Section-216 the object is to secure fair trial to the accused and it is the duty of

the court to ensure that alteration or addition of charge has not caused prejudice

to him. Though the power is wide and extensive, it must be exercised

judiciously. The court cannot alter the charge to the prejudice of the accused.

Similarly, such power cannot be exercised after the accused is discharged of all

the charges inasmuch as no charge exists against him and the provisions of

Section 216 do not apply.

The charge may not specify particular items or exact dates. The charge framed

in the above manner shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the

meaning of Section 219 provided that the time included between the first and

last of such dates shall not exceed one year. Where it is impossible to specify

the particular date on which the offence was committed, it will be sufficient to

state two dates between which the offence was committed.17 It is permissible to

state in a charge under Section 212(1) that the particular offence was committed

on or about certain date.18

Sub-section (2) was primarily enacted so that persons who showed a deficiency

in the accounts with which they were entrusted could be convicted of criminal

misappropriation even when it could not be shown that they had

misappropriated any specified sum.19

The object of Section 213 is twofold: first to ensure that the accused has

sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged as otherwise he will be

seriously prejudiced in his defence,20 and secondly to enable the court to keep in

view the real points in issue and to confine the evidence to such points.

17 Banamali Tripathy v. Emperor AIR 1943 Pat 212 18 Chittaranjan Das v. State of W.B. AIR 1963 SC 1696 19 Wazir Singh v. Emperor AIR 1942 Oudh 89 20 Krishnan v. The State AIR 1958 Ker 94


Omission in a charge cannot be regarded as material unless in terms of Section

215 it is shown by the accused that he has in fact been misled by such omissions

or that there has been a failure of justice as a result of such omission.21 Where

the accused is not misled defect in the charge is not material.22 The irregularity

of charging together different offences instead of charging them separately are

curable under this section and Section 465 if the accused is not prejudiced.23 In

considering the question whether the accused has been prejudiced in his defence

by the defect in the charge regard must be had to the fact that the objection to

the framing of the charge was not raised till a late stage in the proceedings.24

The Code gives ample power to the courts to alter or amend a charge provided

that the accused has not to face for a new offence or is not prejudiced either by

keeping him in the dark about that charge or in not giving a full opportunity of

meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him, on the charge finally

preferred against him.25 Any addition or alteration of a charge will not be illegal

only when it does not prejudice the accused.26

Under Section 217 the accused has a right to recall prosecution witnesses alter

the alteration of the charge, even if such alteration does not affect his

defence.27Such right may be denied by the Court if it is of the opinion that the

purpose is only delay or vexation or defeating the ends of justice. However the

Courts do not owe a legal duty to ask the accused, after the charge has been

altered to state whether he wishes to have any of the witnesses recalled or re-

examined and whether the wishes to call any witnesses.28 The Code gives ample

power to the trial as well as Appellate Courts to alter or amend a charge

provided the accused has not to face a charge for a new offence or is not 21 Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 575 22 Bhimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa AIR 1956 SC 469 23 Babulal v. Emperor AIR 1938 PC 130 24 Sukha v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 513 25 Kantilal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 SC 359 26 Mathura Thakur (1901) 6 CWN 72 27 Ramalinga Odayar v. Emperor AIR 1929 Mad 200 28 Moosa Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala 1982 Cr. LJ 1384 (Ker)


prejudiced either by keeping him in the dark or in not giving a full opportunity

of meeting it and putting forward any defence open to him on the charge finally

preferred against him.29

Joinder of charges:

sections 218 to 222 of the Code provide for joinder of charges in one trial

against the same accused. Section 223 deals with joint trial against two or more

accused persons. The basic rule – section 218 lays down the basic rule relating

to trial of offences and enacts that for every distinct offence there must be a

separate charge and a separate trial for each such charge.

The object of the rule embodied in Section 218 is to ensure a fair trial and to see

that the accused is not bewildered by having been asked to defend several

unconnected charges or distinct offences lumped together in one charge or in

separate charges.30 There is no exception to the rule that there should be

separate charge for each offence. The first part of this section relates to framing

of charges. Section 218 is mandatory and for every distinct offence, there

should be a separate charge excepting in those cases which are specified in the

code. Where two dacoities are committed in two different houses on the same

night a single rolled up charge embracing both dacoities should not be framed.31

According to sub-section (2) the operation of Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223

shall not be affected by the above said basic rule. In other words these sections

are exceptions to the basic rules contained in Section 218(1). These exceptions

are based on some rational principle or other. In Section 219 which permits a

joint trial for offences of the same kind not exceeding three in number and

committed within a period of twelve months, the principle is the avoidance of a

multiplicity of proceedings.32

29 Kantilal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 SC 359 30 Aftab Ahmad Khan v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 436 31 Chandrama Prasaa Chaman (1951) 1 Cal 539 32 Ravinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab 2004 Cri LJ 1322 (P&H)


Exceptions: if the case falls in any of the exceptions, joinder of charges is

permissible.

(1) Desire of accused: where the accused the rule relating to separate trial is

for the benefit of the accused and when the accused himself wants joint

trial and the magistrate is satisfied that such joint trial will not prejudice

the accused, joint trial is permissible.33

(2) Three offences of same kind within one year: when a person is accused of

more offences than one of the same kind committed within one year,

whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with and

tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding three.34

(3) Offences in course of same transaction: if, in one series of acts so

connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than

one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried

at one trial for every such offence.35

(4) Offences of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation of property

connected with falsification of accounts: where a person charged with one

or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation

of property is accused of committing falsification of accounts or the

purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of such offence, he

may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence.36

(5) Same act constituting different offences: if the acts alleged constitute an

offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law, the

person accused of them may be charged with and tried at one trial for

each of such offences.37

(6) Same acts constituting one and also different offences: in several acts of

which one or more than one would be itself or themselves constitute an

offence, and constitute a different offence when combined, the person

33 State of Punjab v. Rajesh, AIR 2002 SC 3687: (2002) 8 SCC 158. 34 Manoharan v. Director General of Police, 2002 CrLJ NOC 51: (2001) 3 KerLT 509: (2001) 2 KerLJ 721; Chandra v. State, (1951) 53 Bom LR 928 (FB). 35 Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 211: 1999 CrLJ 263: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1638; State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal, 2003 CrLJ 60: (2002) 8 SCC 158: AIR 2002 SC 3687. 36 Chandi Prasad v. State of U.P, AIR 1956 SC 149: (1955) 2 SCR 1035: 1956 CrLJ 322; Thankappan v. Union of India, 1989 CrLJ2374 (Ker). 37 Emperor v. Dagdi, (1928) 30 Bom LR 342.


accused of them may be charged with and tried at one trial for individual

offences as well as the combined offence.38

(7) Where it is doubtful what offence in the alternatives: if a single act or

series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful on facts proved which

of several offences has been committed; the accused may be charged with

one of such offences or with several offences in the alternatives.39

If in such a case, the accused is cleared is charged with one offence and it

appears on evidence that he has committed a different offence for which

he might have been charged, he can be convicted of that offence.40

Framing of charge:

Upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under

Section 173 and after examining the accused and hearing the parties, if the

magistrate is of the opinion that the accused has committed an offence which he

is competent to try and could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame a

charge. The charge shall be read over and explained to the accused and he shall

be asked whether he pleads guilty or claims to be tried.41 Framing of charge in

absence of the accused would defeat the very purpose of Section 240(2) of the

Code.42

It is not necessary for the trial Court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for the

purpose of framing charges.43 The manner of examination of material placed by

the prosecution before the court has been thus explained by the Supreme Court.

“It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the trial Court is not to

examine and assess in detail the materials placed on record by the prosecution

nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of the materials for the purpose

of seeing whether the offence alleged against the accused persons is made out.

At the stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to

be satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused

persons.

38 State of A.P v. C.G. Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1850 (1861): (1964) 3 SCR 297: (1963) 2 CrLJ 671; Narinderjit Singh v.

Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3810: (2002) 2 SCC 210. 39 Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 211: (1998) 7 SCC 390. 40 Surendra Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 260: 2002 CrLJ 555: (2002) 1 SCC 266. 41 R.S. Nayak v. A.R. antulay, AIR 1986 SC 2045: (1996) 2 SCC 716: 1986 CrLJ 1922; state of Delhi v. Gyan Devi,

AIR 2001 SC 40: (2000) 8 SCC 239. 42 HDFC Bank v. Mannan, AIR 2010 SC 618: 2010 CrLJ 2293: (2010) 1 SCC 679. 43 Munna Devi v. State pf Rajasthan, (2001) 9 SCC 631.


Where the material on record as product by the prosecution was sufficient for

framing the charge of corruption, the Court need not wait for the public servant

to satisfactorily explain the assets position.44

Where the accused, in collusion with others, defrauded the bank to the tune of

over 2 crore rupees, the Supreme Court observed that a blanket order enabling

the accused not to appear before the court during investigation and even at trial

should not be passed. His presence may become necessary for example, at the

time of framing of charge.

Examination of accused and framing of charge, two distinct stages –

The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of examination of the accused and

framing of charge are two important stages in criminal trial.

In the case Sajjan Sharma v. State of Bihar45 the accused were police officers.

They are arrested the deceased for taking bribe. He was patient of asthama. He

was put in a window-less room which was full of dust and cobwebs which are

known allergies for triggering an asthama attack. He was brought to the hospital

the next day in a comatose condition. His body showed no signs of pulse,

respiration, or blood pressure. The court said that prima facie the accused could

be proceeded against under Section.304, and Section.330, of IPC. But not under

Section. 302, as there was little evidence to establish intention to wilfully cause

death.46

the charge against the accused was that she dishonestly processed and verified

fake bills. The bills in question were neither raised nor signed by the appropriate

authority. The same was not entered in the bill register. The framing of charge

against her was held to be proper. The duty by saying that the accounts section

was negligent in its verification. The court said a person signing a document is

expected to make some enquiry before signing. The presence of material on the

record was sufficient to enable the court to form an opinion that the accused

might have committed the offence. All the officers who dealt with the relevant

files at one point of time or the other could not be taken to have participated in

the conspiracy or guilty of aiding or abetting it. In such cases, it is necessary to

deal with individual acts of criminal misconduct for finding out their respective

44 State (CBI) v. Bangarappa, AIR 2001 SC 222: (2001) 1 SCC 369: 2001 CrLJ 111. 45 AIR 2011 SC 632: 2011 CrLJ 1169. 46 Indu Jain v. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 976: (2008) 15 SCC 341: 2009 CrLJ 951.


roles. Some of the persons similarly situated were not proceeded against only

because departmental proceedings ended in their favour. The court said that the

doctrine of parity under Art. 14 of the Constitution should have been

considered.47

Non-interference in framing of charge:

The Supreme Court explained this aspect in the following words:

It is the statutory obligation of the High Court not to interfere at the initial stage

of framing the charges merely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched

reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trial against the accused

persons. Self-restriant on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless

there is a glaring injustice staring the Court in the face. Unscrupulous litigants

should be discouraged from protracting the trial and preventing culmination of

the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled-for and unjustified litigation

under the cloak of technicalities of law.

At the stage of framing of charge, materials and documents filed by the accused

cannot be considered. Materials produced by the prosecution alone is to be

considered. Depriving the accused of the opportunity to produce the material of

sterling quality at this stage is not violative of Arts.21 and 14 of the

Constitution. This is to become roving or fishing inquiry and mini-trial at the

stage of framing of charge has been held to be not permissible.

CASES

Counter case:power of Sessions Court :

The power of Sessions Court to try even cases which are not triable exclusively

by it. The provision in Section.228 (1)(a) for transferring any such case to the

Court of the CJM has been held to be not mandatory. On the facts of the case,

the Supreme Court held that the transfer of only one of the counter cases was

not proper.48

Rape Case:

47 Soma Chakravarty v. Sate (CBI), AIR 2007 SC 2149: (2007) 5 SCC 403: 2007 CrLJ 3257. 48 Sudhir v. Sate of M.P, AIR 2001 SC 626: (2001) 2 SCC 688: 2001 CrLJ 1072.


At the stage of framing of charge, the statements recorded under section. 164 as

also the affidavits of the prosecutrix and her father in a rape case are not to

taken into account.49

Error or irregularity in framing charge :

Where all other requirements of the section were complied with, the Supreme

Court held that an error or irregularity in framing the charge was not to upset

the trial because no inquiry or prejudiced to the accused was caused in the

defence on merits. His acquittal on this ground was not proper.50

Diluting or dropping charge :

The Supreme Court explained the role of the judge at the stage of framing of

charge. The words”if after such consideration” occurring in s. 228 provide an

interconnection between Sections.227 and 228. While dropping or diluting a

charge under a particular section, although the accused is not discharged, the

court is expected to record reasons. The judgment showed non-application of

mind to the statement in the charge-sheet and medical records. No reasons were

stated as to why the material in the case diary was considered to be

insufficient.51

Taking transfer of property from unauthorised person:

The complainant had executed a general power of attorney in the favour of M.

the latter executed a sale deed for sale of a plot of land of the complainants. The

general power of attorney given to him did not authorise him to transfer

property. The transferee knew it, yet he went ahead with the transaction. The

order framing charges against him was held to be proper.52

49 Vikas Rusia v. State of M.p., 2002 CrLJ 2895 (MP) 50 State of Punjab v. Harjagdev Singh, AIR 2009 SC 2693: (2009) 16 SCC 91. 51 R.S. Mishra v.State of Orissa, AIR 2011 SC 1103: (2011) 2 SCC 689: 2011 CrLJ 1654. 52 Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2972: (2009) 16 SCC 91.


Conclusion:

Charge is an accusation against a person with respect to the commission of an

offence. Every charge shall state the section of the law along with the name of

the offence, if any, which the accused is charge and shall also state the time,

place and the manner of the occurrence as well as the person against whom or

the thing in respect of which the offences has been committed. Previous

conviction of the person charged with, if any, may also be mentioned, because it

directs severe punishment. For every offences there shall be a separate Charge

and the charge be tried separately except in the cases mentioned with the

section. In one series of acts so connected together as to form the same

transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, the

person may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offences.

If the offences so committed falls with in the definition the accused may be

charged with both offences and tried at one trial for each of such offences. On

framing of charge the same be read over and explained to the accused and his

reply shall have to be recorded in the prescribed form and the Magistrate shall

sign the same. The matter of framing of the charge may also be noted in the

order sheet of the case. In necessary charge can be attested. And if it attested it

should be read over the same.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Kelkar, R.V., Criminal Procedure Code, 5th edition Eastern (2008)

Misra, S.N., The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Probation of Offenders Act &

Juvenile Justice Act, 17th ed, Central Law Publications (2011)

Sarkar’s, The Code of Criminal Procedure, Dwivedi Law Agency Allahabad, Reprint (2007)

Articles

Chitnis, S.R., “Framing of Charge in Criminal Cases”, Eastern Book Company (2002)

Jain, Tarun, “Framing of ‘charge’ in criminal trial: The law revisited”, Law in Perspective

(2010)

Sathasivam, Justice P., “Framing of Charge: Principles and Law”, The Legal Blog, (2011)

Websites

http://www.ebc- india.com/lawyer/articles/2002v2a3.htm

http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in/2010/10/framing-of-charge- in-criminal-trial- law.html

http://www.legalblog.in/2011/08/framing-of-charge-principles-and-law.html