Page |1

CHAPTER 1

1.1 Introduction

In criminal jurisprudence, the fair trial of a person requires 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 Criminal Procedure Code the
accused is informed of the accusation in the beginning itself. In cases of serious
offences, the Code requires for the formulation of writing with great precision and
clarity. This "charge" is then to be read and explained to the accused person1.

Charge serves the purpose of notice or intimation to the accused, drawn up according to
specific language of law, giving clear and unambiguous or precise notice of the nature
of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial2.

The initial requirement of a fair trial in criminal cases is a precise statement of the
accusation. The code seeks to secure this requirement, first, by laying down in Sections
211 to 214 of CrPC as to what a charge should contain; next, stipulating in Section 218
of CrPC that for every distinct offence there should be a separate charge; and lastly, by
laying down in the same section that each charge should be tried separately, so that
what is sought to be achieved by the first two rules is not nullified by a joinder of
numerous & unconnected charges3.

There are three pairs of sections in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Those are
sections 227 and 228 which relates to sessions trial; sections 239 and 240 relating to
trial of warrant cases and sections 244(1) and (2) qua trial of summons case. Even
though it is a warrant case or a summons case, the prima facie case must be established
before a charge can be framed.

1
This procedure is followed in trials of warrant cases & trials before courts of session.
2
V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI, 1980 Cri LJ 690, 732
3
Sanatan Mondal v. State, 1988 Cri LJ 238 (Cal)
 Page |2

1.2 Research Objectives

1) To study about the procedure of framing a charge briefly.

2) To analyse the practice of framing the charges under various provisions in Code
of Criminal Procedure and draw conclusions.

1.2 Literature Review

Books

1) C.K. Takwani, Criminal Procedure, 4th edition, Lexisnexis

This book lays bare the fundamental principles of procedural law and examines
the subject topic-wise, explaining important and complicated issues with the
help of case laws. The fourth edition examines the amendments introduced by
the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 in detail.

2) Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 21st edition,

Lexisnexis

This book, analyzes the Code in detail, although simple in approach. With the
support of helpful case laws, this book maintains the clarity of concept and is
provides useful knowledge about the provisions.

3) K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkars Criminal Procedure, 6th edition,

Eastern Book Company

This book provides an interesting study of the fundamental principles of

criminal procedure in a logical sequence. It has incorporated all the recent
developments until 2008. It drew attention to some aspects of the code while
generating new ideas so that the criminal procedure may grow in tune with the
times.
 Page |3

1.3 Research Methodology

Given a study of this kind, this research project has been written using the doctrinal
or principled method of research, which involves the collection of data from
secondary sources, like articles found in journals and websites.

1.4 Source of Data

Accumulation of the information on the topic includes various secondary sources

such as books, e-articles, etc. The matter from these sources has been complied and
analysed to understand the topic in a better way.

1.5 Research Questions

1) What is charge and its purpose?

2) How a charge is framed and is provided in Criminal Procedure?
3) What is the practice after the framing of such charges as provided in the Code
and relevant cases?

1.6 Scope and Limitation

The project is an attempt to study charges under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and to observe its relevant procedure and practice with cases and appropriate
provisions.
 Page |4

CHAPTER -2

2.1 Meaning and purpose of Charge

Charge means to impose a burden, duty, obligation or lien and in criminal law,
4
to indict or formally accuse.

A Charge shall give the accused full notice of the offence charged against him.
The purpose of a charge is to tell an accused person as precisely and concisely as
possible of the matter with which he is charged and must convey to him with
sufficient clearness and certainty5 what the prosecution intends to prove against him
and of which he will have to clear himself. Though the term charge is defined in
section 2(b) of the Code, the definition is merely inclusive in nature and does not
explain the meaning thereof.6

The primary object of framing a charge is to give notice of the essential facts which
the prosecution proposes to establish to bring home charge to the accused so that he
will be able to defend and may not be prejudiced. It has been repeatedly held that the
framing of a proper charge is vital to a criminal trial and that is a matter on which the
judge should bestow the most careful attention.7 A charge is an important step in a
criminal proceeding. It separates the stage of inquiry from trial.8

In the ruling of a four-Judge Bench of The Honble 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.

4
Charge, thefreedictionary, (last updated Nov. 2016), http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/charge,
5
Jaswantrai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575 (585): 1956 SCR 483(504-05): 1956 CrLJ 1116; Willie
Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116; (1955) 2 SCR 1140: 1956 CrLJ 291.
6
C.K. Takwani, Criminal Procedure, (4th ed. 2016)
7
Balakrishnan v. State, AIR 1958 Ker 283; Basavaraja v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 9SCC 329: (2008) 3 SCC
(Cri) 767.
8
C.K. Takwani, Criminal Procedure, (4th ed. 2016)
9
C.B.I.,1980 Supplementary SCC 92 at page 150 and paragraph 110
 Page |5

2.2 Contents of a charge

Sections 211-214 of the code 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:10

(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.11
(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

10
Sec. 211
11
Sec. 212
 Page |6

also contain such particulars of the matter in which the alleged offence was
committed as will be sufficient for that purpose;12
(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.13

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.14

2.2.1 Scope of Inquiry

At the stage of framing a charge, the court has to be satisfied only prima facie
about the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The
court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials
produced are sufficient for bringing home guilt of the accused. The only question is
whether the material on record supports a triable case. Each case depends upon its
peculiar facts and circumstances.

2.2.2 Error and Omissions in Charge

Sections 215, 464 and 465 of the Code should be read together since they deal
with the same question. Section 215 enacts that no error or omission in the charge
will be regarded as material unless it has occasioned a failure of justice.

Effect of errors: No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to
be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars,
shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact
misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.

12
Sec. 213
13
Sec. 214
14
Kantilal v. State of Gujarat, 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.
 Page |7

464. 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 recommenced 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 is 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.

While examining the aforesaid provisions, we may keep in mind the principles laid
down by Justice Vivian Bose in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya
Pradesh15 of the report, the learned judge observed:-

We see no reason for straining at the meaning of these plain and emphatic
provisions unless ritual and form are to be regarded as of the essence in criminal
trials. We are unable to find any magic or charm in the ritual of a charge. It is the
substance of these provisions that count and not their outward form. To hold
otherwise is only to provide avenues of escape for the guilty and afford no protection
to the innocent.

The aforesaid observation has been expressly approved subsequently by this Court
in V.C. Shukla v. State16.

15
(1955) 2 SCR 1140
16
1980 Cri LJ 690, 732
 Page |8

Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of
Tulsi Ram and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh17. In that case in paragraph 12 this
Court was considering these aspects of the matter and made it clear that a complaint
about the charge was never raised at any earlier stage and the learned Judges came to
the conclusion that the charge was fully understood by the appellants in that case and
they never complained at the appropriate stage that they were confused or
bewildered by the charge. Therefore, the Court refused to accept any grievance
relating to error in the framing of the charge.

2.2.3 Alteration of 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.

17
AIR 1963 SC 666
 Page |9

CHAPTER 3

3.1 Framing of Charges

3.1.1 Framing of charges in sessions trial

The framing of a charge is not mere formality but a judicial act it is required to
be performed after application of mind. The object of Section 228 is to ensure that
the court is satisfied that the accusation made against the accused is not false and
frivolous but there is some material for proceeding against him. Reading section
227 and 228 together, it is clear that what the court has to see whether it is a prima
facie case against the accused and he is in any manner connected with the incident
leading to the prosecution.

Section 227 provides for discharge of an accused. It states, if, upon consideration
of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing
the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge
considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he
shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.18

This provision is intended to eliminate harassment to the accused when there is no

prima facie case against him. At the stage of the trial, however, veracity and effect
of the evidence should not be judged. If the scale as to the guilt or innocence of the
accused are even at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or
Section 228, then in such a situation, ordinarily and generally the order will have to
be made under Section 228 (framing of charge) and not under Section 227
(discharge). Section 227 enables the Judge to discharge the accused if there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against him.

The test to determine prima facie case depends on the facts of each case and it is
neither feasible nor advisable to lay down a rule of universal application. It has,

18
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
 P a g e | 10

however, been held that if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied
that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished
from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.19

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.

In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar20 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 its 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 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 total effect 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.

19
Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991
20
AIR 1979 SC 366
 P a g e | 11

3.1.2 Framing of charges in warrant trial

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.21 Framing of charge in absence of the accused
would defeat the very purpose of Section 240(2) of the Code.22

It is not necessary for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for the
purpose of framing charges.23 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.

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.24

3.1.3 Framing of charges qua trial of summons case

Section 244 states that when any case is instituted otherwise than on police
report, and if the accused person is brought before the court or the magistrate, the
magistrate can proceed to hear the prosecution and hear al the evidence that may be
provided in support of the prosecution and the magistrate can issue a summon to

21
R.S. Nayak v. A.R. antulay, AIR 1986 SC 2045
22
HDFC Bank v. Mannan, AIR 2010 SC 618
23
Munna Devi v. State pf Rajasthan, (2001) 9 SCC 631.
24
State (CBI) v. Bangarappa, AIR 2001 SC 222
 P a g e | 12

any of the witness and direct them to produce any document or any other thing so
required.

Section 245 provides for the accused to be discharged if the Magistrate considers,
for reasons to be considered that if the case against the accused is not rebutted, it
would warrant his conviction and the Magistrate can discharge him. This provision
does not stop the Magistrate to discharge the accused at any previous stage if he
considers the charge to be groundless for any such reason.

Section 246 provides for the procedure where the evidence against the accused has
been taken and the Magistrate is of opinion that the accused has committed an
offence triable under the chapter of the Code, then he can frame a charge against
the accused. The charge has to be read and explained to the accused and he is to be
given a chance to make any defence or plead guilty.

If the accused refuse to plead, or does not plead, he shall be required to state, at the
commencement of the next hearing of the case, and if the Magistrate for reasons to
be recorded in writing, wishes to cross-examine or re-examine any witness, they
shall be discharged.

3.1.4 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.25

25
Smt.Om Wati & Anr vs State, Through Delhi Admn. & Ors on 19 March, 2001
 P a g e | 13

At the stage of framing of charge, materials and documents filed by the accused
cannot be considered. Materials produced by the prosecution alone are to be
considered. Depriving the accused of the opportunity to produce the material of
sterling quality at this stage is not violative of Art. 14 and 21 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.
 P a g e | 14

CONCLUSION

In a criminal trial the charge is the foundation of the accusation & every care must be
taken to see that it is not only properly framed but evidence is only tampered with
respect to matters put in the charge & not the other matters.

In framing a charge during a criminal trial, instituted upon a police report, the court is
required to confine its attention to documents referred to under section 173.

The judge needs to be only convinced that there is a prime facie case, where there is no
necessity to adduce reasons for framing charges. However, the magistrate is required to
write an order showing reasons if he decides to discharge the accused.

The sections dealing with charge do not mention who is to frame the charge. The
provisions dealing with different types of trials however provide that it is always for the
court to frame the charge. The court may alter/ add to any charge at any time before the
judgment is pronounced.

But if a person has been charged, the court cannot drop it. He has either to be convicted
or acquitted. All this has an important bearing on the administration of justice.
 P a g e | 15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Source:

Bare Act

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Secondary Source:

Books:

1. C.K. Takwani, Criminal Procedure, 4th Edition, LexisNexis.

2. B.M Prasad, Manish Mohan, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure
21st Edition, LexisNexis

3. K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkar's Lectures on Criminal Procedure; 6th

Edition, Reprinted 2011 (EBC)

4. K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkar's Criminal Procedure; 6th Edition, (EBC)

Articles:

Chargesheet, Wikipedia, (Last updated, 20th Aug. 2017)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chargesheet

Sugandha Nayak, India: Framing of Charges: An Overview (Last updated, 13th Aug,
2013)
http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/257582/Crime/Framing+Of+Charges+An+Overview

Justice P. Sathasivam, Framing of Charges, Principles and Law, (Last updated, 28th Aug,
2011)

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