IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
Joseph Thomas – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1283 OF 2023
Decided On : 17-07-2024
CRIMINAL REVISION - COURT CHARGE - Cr.P.C. Sections 211, 212, 213, 214, 218 - The court discussed the requirements for framing charges under the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that each distinct offence must have a separate charge and that charges must be clear and in the language of the court. The court found that the charge against the petitioner was improperly framed by clubbing distinct offences together, violating the provisions of the Cr.P.C. This misframing influenced the decision to set aside the charge and direct the lower court to reframe it properly.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petitioner, the 3rd accused in a criminal case, challenged the court charge framed against him for multiple offences under the IPC and the Kerala Police Act, arguing that the charges were improperly clubbed together without distinct charges for each offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge was unsustainable as it failed to comply with the requirements of the Cr.P.C., specifically regarding the necessity of separate charges for distinct offences and the language in which the charge was framed.
Issues: 1) What are the essentials to be stated in a court charge? 2) In which language should the court charge be framed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that under Sections 211 to 214 of the Cr.P.C., charges must be clear, distinct for each offence, and in the language of the court to ensure the accused is adequately informed of the accusations against them.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed, and the lower court was directed to reframe the charge in accordance with the law, providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before doing so.
ORDER :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.' hereinafter), by the revision petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in Crime No.507/2019 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, now pending as C.C.No.1388/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – VIII, Ernakulam.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The revision petitioner herein assails Annexure A4, the court charge framed for the offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(iv), 354D r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
4. Going by Annexure A4 order, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on each head, all the offences were clubbed together as against accused Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioner herein is the 3rd accused. The charge also framed in Malayalam language.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor also conceded the legal position that, for distinct offence, there shall be separate charge.
6. Now, the questions require consideration are;
2) In which language court charge shall be framed?
7. Section 211 of the Cr.P.C. deals with contents of charge and Section 212 of the Cr.P.C. deals with particulars as to time, place and person to be included in the charge. As per Section 213 of the Cr.P.C., the manner of committing offence must also be stated. Charge also should contain the offence punishable as per Section 214 of the Cr.P.C. Section 228 of the Cr.P.C. deals with framing charge in sessions case and Section 240 of the Cr.P.C. deals with framing of charge in warrant trial.
8. Sections 211 to 214 of the Cr.P.C. read as under:
(2) If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.
(3) 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.
(4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in the charge.
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.
(6) The charge shall be written in the language of the Court.
(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable, by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if such statement has been omitted, the Court may add it at any time before sentence is passed.
212. Particulars as to time, place and person.—(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in 107 respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(2) 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, as the case may be, describe the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be d
Each distinct offence must be charged separately, and charges must be framed in the language of the court to provide clear notice to the accused.
At the stage of framing the charge, the court should only consider whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused based on the material on record, and should not weigh the ev....
Alteration of charge – Merely for reason that Trial Court while passing order on application filed by respondent under Section 227 of Cr.P.C had made observation that there was no sufficient material....
Charges must be distinct and clearly articulated to ensure fair trial and compliance with legal standards.
Charges must be framed with specific details of time, place, and particulars as mandated by the Cr.P.C., and failure to comply constitutes a serious procedural breach.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to alter or add charges under Section 216 of the Cr.P.C. lies exclusively with the court and cannot be exercised at the instance of ....
A trial court must apply its mind to the evidence and material before framing charges, ensuring reasonable grounds exist for presuming guilt.
A Criminal Court has the discretion to frame charges based on evidence from prosecution records, regardless of the police final report.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.