Cr.P.C framing of Charges


Published on

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cr.P.C framing of Charges

  1. 1. 1|Page A Project On Practice & Procedure of framing a charge under Cr.P.C: A Critical Review For partial fulfillment of assessment of Law of Crimes II (Code of Criminal Procedure-I) Submitted by Baby Ramya Muppirisetty Division C, 36 BA LLB Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA Symbiosis International University, PUNE Under the guidance of Prof Girijesh Shukla, Course in Charge, Law of Crimes II (Code of Criminal Procedure-I) Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA 201301 ON 03-10-2012 SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  2. 2. 2|Page CertificateThe project entitled “…" submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Law of Crimes Paper: II(Code of Criminal Procedure-I) as part of internal assessment is my original work carried out under theguidance of Dr. Girijesh Shukla from 10th August to 3rd October. The research work has not been submittedelsewhere for award of any publication or degree.The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the work has been duly acknowledged. Iunderstand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.Signature of the candidateDate: SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  3. 3. 3|PageAcknowledgmentI owe a great many thanks to a great many people who helped and supported me during the completion ofthe project.My deepest thanks to Dr. Girijesh Shukla the Guide of the project for guiding and correcting variousdocuments of mine with attention and care. She has taken pain to go through the project and make necessarycorrection as and when needed.I would also thank my Institution and my faculty members without whom this project would have been adistant reality. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my family and well wishers. SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  4. 4. 4|PageIntroduction:Meaning: “The Charge” shall give the accused full notice of the offence charged against him. The purposeof a charge is to tell an accused person as precisely and concisely as possible of the matter with which he ischarged and must convey to him with sufficient clearness and certainty1 what the prosecution intends toprove against him and of which he will have to clear himself. The primary object of framing a charge is togive notice of the essential facts which the prosecution proposes to establish to bring home charge to theaccused so that he will be able to defend and may not be prejudiced. It has been repeatedly held that theframing of a proper charge is vital to a criminal trial and that is a matter on which the judge should bestowthe most careful attention.2The Purpose of Framing Charge:In the ruling of a four-Judge Bench of The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla v. State3. Justice Desaidelivering a concurring opinion opined that „the purpose of framing a charge is to give intimation to theaccused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called uponto meet in the course of a trial‟.Difference between Charge and Trial:CHARGE TRIAL 1. The prosecutor files the „charge-sheet‟ containing 1. After receiving the charge-sheet, the „charge/s‟ in the court. Magistrate takes the cognizance of the case and starts proceedings. 2. The charge-sheet contains FIR, police report, 2. Cognizance of the case be receiving the investigation, names and description of the charge-sheet is the first step of the trial, and accused and witnesses, etc. the trial includes all the proceeds of the court, and ends with announcement of judgment. 3. Preparing and filing of the charge-sheet are done 3. Trial is conducted by the court. Trial is judicial by police and prosecutor, which is purely nature. executive nature. 4. A private person cannot file charge-sheet. He can 4. Whether a complaint or charge-sheet, the court file complaint in non-cognizable offences. conducts the proceedings judicially. Generally the majority of the cases filed by the police belong to cognizance offences. 5. Upto filing the charge-sheet, it is in the „Pre-Trial 5. As soon as the court receives/takes the Process.‟ cognizance of a charge-sheet, the trial starts which is the „Trial Process‟.Contents: 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 besatisfied:4 (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;1 Jaswantrai v. Stae 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 291.2 Balakrishnan v. State, AIR 1958 Ker 283; Basavaraja v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 9SCC 329: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 767.3 C.B.I.,1980 Supplementary SCC 92 at page 150 and paragraph 1104 Sec. 211 SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  5. 5. 5|Page (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.5 (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;6 (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.7A charge must be precise in its scope and particular in its details. Such particulars should be stated in thecharge 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 tofacts and circumstances of each case.8Form of Charge: the forms in which the charges are to be framed are set out in Form No. 32 of the SecondSchedule. They provide framing of a charge with one head, with two or more heads, etc. 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.5 Sec. 2126 Sec. 2137 Sec. 2148 Chittaranjan Das v. State of W.B; Kantilal v. State of Gujarath, AIR 1974 SC 222: (1974) 3 SCC 587: 1974 SCC 310; Main Palv. State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 3292: 2010 CrLJ 4450: (2010)10 SCC 130. SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  6. 6. 6|Page (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)Scope of Inquiry: at the stage of framing a charge, the court has to be satisfied only prima facie about theexistence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciateevidence 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 itspeculiar facts and circumstances.Errors and Omissions: sections 215, 464 and 465 of the Code should be read together since they deal withthe same question. Section 215 enacts that no error or omission in the charge will be regarded as materialunless 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 asmaterial, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure ofjustice.464. Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge: (1) No finding sentence or order by aCourt of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed oron 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 beenoccasioned thereby.(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact beenoccasioned, it may-(a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial berecommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge; SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  7. 7. 7|Page(b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a chargeframed 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 bepreferred 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 VivianBose in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh9 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 formare to be regarded as of the essence in criminal trials. We are unable to find any magic or charm in the ritualof a charge. It is the substance of these provisions that count and not their outward form. To hold otherwiseis only to provide avenues of escape for the guilty and afford no protection to the innocent.The aforesaid observation of Justice Vivian Bose in William Slaney (supra) has been expressly approvedsubsequently by this Court in V.C. Shukla (supra).Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Tulsi Ram and othersv. State of Uttar Pradesh10. In that case in paragraph 12 this Court was considering these aspects of thematter and made it clear that a complaint about the charge was never raised at any earlier stage and thelearned Judges came to the conclusion that the charge was fully understood by the appellants in that case andthey never complained at the appropriate stage that they were confused or bewildered by the charge. The sadthing is true here. Therefore, the Court refused to accept any grievance relating to error in the framing of thecharge.Alteration in Charge: Section-216 the object is to secure fair trial to the accused and it is the duty of thecourt to ensure that alteration or addition of charge has not caused prejudice to him. Though the power iswide and extensive, it must be exercised judiciously. The court cannot alter the charge to the prejudice of theaccused. Similarly, such power cannot be exercised after the accused is discharged of all the chargesinasmuch as no charge exists against him and the provisions of Section 216 do not apply.Joinder of charges: sections 218 to 222 of the Code provide for joinder of charges in one trial against thesame 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 offencethere must be a separate charge and a separate trial for each such charge.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.11 (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.129 (1955) 2 SCR 114010 AIR 1963 SC 66611 State of Punjab v. Rajesh, AIR 2002 SC 3687: (2002) 8 SCC 158.12 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). SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  8. 8. 8|Page (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.13 (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.14 (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.15 (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 accused of them may be charged with and tried at one trial for individual offences as well as the combined offence.16 (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.17 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.18Conviction for minor offence when major offence is charged: when an accused is charged of an offenceconsisting of several particulars, some of which constitute a minor offence, he can be convicted of suchminor offence. Similarly, when an accused is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduced itto a minor offence, he can be convicted of minor offence even though he is not charged with such offence.19Conversely, however, a person cannot be convicted for a major offence if he is charged with the minor one.Illustration: A is charged for committing murder of B as defined in Section 300, IPC. At the trial the court isconvicted that A has committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as defined inSection 299 IPC. A can be convicted for culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC. 2013 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 3687.14 Chandi Prasad v. State of U.P, AIR 1956 SC 149: (1955) 2 SCR 1035: 1956 CrLJ 322; Thankappan v. Union of India, 1989CrLJ2374 (Ker).15 Emperor v. Dagdi, (1928) 30 Bom LR 342.16 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 ofIndia, AIR 2001 SC 3810: (2002) 2 SCC 210.17 Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 211: (1998) 7 SCC 390.18 Surendra Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 260: 2002 CrLJ 555: (2002) 1 SCC 266.19 Sec. 222(1), (2).20 Suman Sood v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2007 SC 2774: 2007 CrLJ 4080: (2007) 5 SCC 634. SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  9. 9. 9|PageNo conviction for major offence when minor offence is charged: we have already seen that when anaccused is charged with a major offence, he can legally be convicted for a minor offence. Vive versa,however, is not true. Hence, if an accused is charged for a minor offence, he cannot be convicted for a majoroffence.21In the leading case of Willie Slaney v. State of M.P., it was stated that “on a charge for minor offence, therecan be no conviction for a major offence”. Thus, if the accused is charged for committing an offence ofcausing grievous hurt, he cannot be convicted for an offence of murder. Likewise, if the accused is chargedfor causing death by rash or negligent driving, punishable under Section 304-A, IPC, or for an offencepunishable under Section 201, IPC, he cannot be convicted under Section 302, IPC for committing murder asdefined in Section 300.Withdrawal of Charges: Section 224 states that when an accused is charged for two or more offences andis convicted on one or more of them, the complainant or prosecution may with the leave of the courtwithdraw the remaining charge or charges. Similarly, the Court may on its own accord stay the inquiry intoor trial on such charges. If the court permits withdrawal of charges, such withdrawal would amount to acquittal on the remainingcharges and they cannot be inquired or received except under the order of the court setting aside theconviction.22Quashing of charge: it is no doubt open to a High Court while exercising powers either under Section 482of the Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash charges framed by the trial court. But it is wellsettled that at the stage of framing charge, the court is expected to consider only the prima facie case toproceed against the accused and not whether the case would result in conviction. Truthfulness, sufficiency,adequacy or acceptability of the material produced at the time of framing of charges can be considered onlyat the trial and not a prior stage.23Discharge of the accused: Section 227 provides for discharge of an accused. It states, “if, uponconsideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing thesubmissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficientground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for sodoing.”This provision is intended to eliminate harassment to the accused when there is no prima facie case againsthim. At the stage of the trial, however, veracity and effect of the evidence should not be mentionally judged.If the scale as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are even at the initial stage of making an order underSection 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation, ordinarily and generally the order will have to be madeunder Section 228 (framing of charge) and not under Section 227 (discharge). Section 227 enables the Judgeto 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 noradvisable to lay down a rule of universal application. It has, however, been held that if two views are equally21 Williw Slaney v. State of M.P; Ganesh v. Sate of Orissa, 1988 CrLJ 1500 (Ori).22 A.R.Antuley v. R.S.Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531: (1988) 2 SCC 602 (697).23 State of Maharashtra v. Salman Khan, AIR 2004 SC 1189: (2004) 1 SCC 525: 2004 CrLJ 920; State of Punjab v. kasturi Lal,AIR 2004 SC 4087: 2004 CrLJ 3866: (2004) 12 SCC 195. SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  10. 10. 10 | P a g epossible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only asdistinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. 24Framing of Charge:The framing of a charge is not mere formality but a judicial act it is required to be performed afterapplication of mind. The object of Section 228 is to ensure that the court is satisfied that the accusation madeagainst the accused is not false and frivolous but there is some material for proceeding against him. ReadingSection 227 and 228 together, it is clear that what the court has to see whether it is a prima facie case againstthe accused and he is in any manner connected with the incident leading to the prosecution. Certain rules aregiven below find out that is the case is prima facie or proper evidence against the accused:When charge may be framed: In all warrant cases whether triable by a Court of Session or by aMagistrate, a formal charge is required to be framed. Framing of Charge is, however, not necessary insummons case. Similarly, it is not necessary to frame charge in summary trials. At the stage of framing acharge, the court should consider the materials placed before the court; there is a prima facie case against theaccused. The test to determine prima facie case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.25In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar26 after considering the leading cases on the point, the Supreme Courtlaid 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 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.Section 240- Framing of charge: Upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it underSection 173 and after examining the accused and hearing the parties, if the magistrate is of the opinion thatthe accused has committed an offence which he is competent to try and could be adequately punished byhim, he shall frame a charge. The charge shall be read over and explained to the accused and he shall be24 Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 2991: 2008 CrLJ 3872: (2008) 10 SCC 394.25 Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra, AIR 1963 SC 1430: (1963) 2 CrLJ 397: (1964) 1 SCR 639; Union of India v. PrafullaKumar, AIR 1979 SC 366: (1979) 3 SCC 4: 1979 CrLJ 154; State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 (1977) 4 SCC39: (1978) 1 SCR 257: 1977 CrLJ 1606.26 AIR 1979 SC 366: (1979) 3 SCC 4: 1979 CrLJ 154: (1979) 3 SCR 1. SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  11. 11. 11 | P a g easked whether he pleads guilty or claims to be tried.27 Framing of charge in absence of the accused woulddefeat the very purpose of Section 240(2) of the Code.28It is not necessary for the trial Court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for the purpose of framingcharges.29 The manner of examination of material placed by the prosecution before the court has been thusexplained 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 detailthe materials placed on record by the prosecution nor is it for the Court to consider the sufficiency of thematerials for the purpose of seeing whether the offence alleged against the accused persons is made out. Atthe stage of charge the Court is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that a prima faciecase has been made out against the accused persons.Where the material on record as product by the prosecution was sufficient for framing the charge ofcorruption, the Court need not wait for the public servant to satisfactorily explain the assets position.30Where the accused, in collusion with others, defrauded the bank to the tune of over 2 crore rupees, theSupreme Court observed that a blanket order enabling the accused not to appear before the court duringinvestigation and even at trial should not be passed. His presence may become necessary for example, at thetime 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 twoimportant stages in criminal trial.In the case Sajjan Sharma v. State of Bihar31 the accused were police officers. They are arrested thedeceased for taking bribe. He was patient of asthama. He was put in a window-less room which was full ofdust and cobwebs which are known allergies for triggering an asthama attack. He was brought to the hospitalthe next day in a comatose condition. His body showed no signs of pulse, respiration, or blood pressure. Thecourt said that prima facie the accused could be proceeded against under Section.304, and Section.330, ofIPC. But not under Section. 302, as there was little evidence to establish intention to wilfully cause death.32the charge against the accused was that she dishonestly processed and verified fake bills. The bills inquestion were neither raised nor signed by the appropriate authority. The same was not entered in the billregister. The framing of charge against her was held to be proper. The duty by saying that the accountssection was negligent in its verification. The court said a person signing a document is expected to makesome enquiry before signing. The presence of material on the record was sufficient to enable the court toform an opinion that the accused might have committed the offence. All the officers who dealt with therelevant files at one point of time or the other could not be taken to have participated in the conspiracy orguilty of aiding or abetting it. In such cases, it is necessary to deal with individual acts of criminalmisconduct for finding out their respective roles. Some of the persons similarly situated were not proceeded27 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 SC40: (2000) 8 SCC 239.28 HDFC Bank v. Mannan, AIR 2010 SC 618: 2010 CrLJ 2293: (2010) 1 SCC 679.29 Munna Devi v. State pf Rajasthan, (2001) 9 SCC 631.30 State (CBI) v. Bangarappa, AIR 2001 SC 222: (2001) 1 SCC 369: 2001 CrLJ 111.31 AIR 2011 SC 632: 2011 CrLJ 1169.32 Indu Jain v. State of M.P., AIR 2009 SC 976: (2008) 15 SCC 341: 2009 CrLJ 951. SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  12. 12. 12 | P a g eagainst only because departmental proceedings ended in their favour. The court said that the doctrine ofparity under Art. 14 of the Constitution should have been considered.33Non-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 chargesmerely on hypothesis, imagination and far-fetched reasons which in law amount to interdicting the trialagainst the accused persons. Self-restriant on the part of the High Court should be the rule unless there is aglaring injustice staring the Court in the face. Unscrupulous litigants should be discouraged from protractingthe trial and preventing culmination of the criminal cases by having resort to uncalled-for and unjustifiedlitigation 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 toproduce 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 tobe not permissible.CASES –Counter case- power of Sessions Court - the power of Sessions Court to try even cases which are nottriable exclusively by it. The provision in Section.228 (1)(a) for transferring any such case to the Court ofthe CJM has been held to be not mandatory. On the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that thetransfer of only one of the counter cases was not proper.34Rape Case – at the stage of framing of charge, the statements recorded under section. 164 as also theaffidavits of the prosecutrix and her father in a rape case are not to taken into account.35Error 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 becauseno inquiry or prejudiced to the accused was caused in the defence on merits. His acquittal on this ground wasnot proper.36Diluting or dropping charge – the Supreme Court explained the role of the judge at the stage of framing ofcharge. The words”if after such consideration” occurring in s. 228 provide an interconnection betweenSections.227 and 228. While dropping or diluting a charge under a particular section, although the accused isnot discharged, the court is expected to record reasons. The judgment showed non-application of mind to thestatement in the charge-sheet and medical records. No reasons were stated as to why the material in the casediary was considered to be insufficient.3733 Soma Chakravarty v. Sate (CBI), AIR 2007 SC 2149: (2007) 5 SCC 403: 2007 CrLJ 3257.34 Sudhir v. Sate of M.P, AIR 2001 SC 626: (2001) 2 SCC 688: 2001 CrLJ 1072.35 Vikas Rusia v. State of M.p., 2002 CrLJ 2895 (MP)36 State of Punjab v. Harjagdev Singh, AIR 2009 SC 2693: (2009) 16 SCC 91.37 R.S. Mishra v.State of Orissa, AIR 2011 SC 1103: (2011) 2 SCC 689: 2011 CrLJ 1654. SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  13. 13. 13 | P a g eTaking transfer of property from unauthorised person – the complainant had executed a general powerof 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 knewit, yet he went ahead with the transaction. The order framing charges against him was held to be proper. 3838 Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 2972: (2009) 16 SCC 91. SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA
  14. 14. 14 | P a g eBibliography:Primary Source:Bare Act “Criminal Procedure Code, 1973”The Indian Penal Code, 1860The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.Secondary Source:Books:1. C.K. Takwani, Criminal Procedure, LexisNexis.2. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Manohar, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code ofCriminal Procedure 20th Edition, LexixNexis/ Butterworth3. K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, R.V. Kelkars Lectures on Criminal Procedure; 4th Edition, Reprinted 2011(EBC)4. S.C. Sarkar, Sarkar on the Law of Criminal Procedure, LexisNexis ButterworthsArticles: couple-rajkumar-and-vijay-mandal SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA