IMPORTANT POINT
Charges must be distinct and clearly articulated to ensure fair trial and compliance with legal standards.

ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Crl.Rev.Petition.No.672/2025 has been filed at the instance of the second accused in C.C.No.2/2012 on the files of the Special CBI Court, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the charge framed by the court against him for the offences punishable under Sections 120B IPC r/w 11, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1) (a) 13(1) (d) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as ‘P.C. Act’ for short).

2. Crl.M.C.5225/2025 is also one filed seeking quashment of C.C.No.2/2012, at the instance of the same petitioner/ 2^nd accused.

Crl.Rev.Petition.No.672/2025

3. At the time of argument, the learned counsel for 6 the revision petitioner pointed out that the court charge under challenge in this revision is not properly framed. After reading the charge, it is submitted that charge was framed clubbing all the offences together, against the mandate of law. Therefore, framing of charge is not in accordance with law and the same requires interference. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of this Court in Joseph Thomas v. State of Kerala [(2024) KHC 644], wherein this Court considered the essentials to be stated in a court charge in para Nos.7, 9, and 10 and the same are extracted as under;

“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.

9. As per Section 218 of the Cr.P.C., for every distinct offence, of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, subject to Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 of the Cr.P.C. As per Section 211(6) of the Cr.P.C., the charge shall be written in the language of the court.

10. Going by Annexure A4, charge framed clubbing all the offences together without framing distinct charge for distinct offences. Charge also framed in Malayalam language. In the decision in V.C. Shukla v. State through C.B.I. reported in [1980 Supp SCC 92] in page 150, the Apex Court observed 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 trial.

4. Adverting the ratio of the above decision with reference to Sections 211 to 214 of the Cr.P.C and the pari materia provisions, viz., sections 234 to 237 of ‘The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita’ (‘BNSS’ for short) 2013, in the instant case all the offences together charged, mentioning seven instances without clarity. It appears that the charges framed is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the court charge under challenge which is not proper, would require interference.

5. Holding so, this criminal revision petition is allowed, 8 and Annexure A3 charge is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Special CBI court, Thiruvananthapuram to frame proper charge afresh for each distinct offence after following the ratio in Joseph Thomas case (supra) in its letter and spirit in tune with the mandate of Section 234 to 237 of BNSS and then proceed with trial.

6. Coming to Crl.M.C No.5225/2025, even though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued to quash the final report, the same is opposed by the learned standing counsel for CBI. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that, in an earlier occasion Crl.Rev.Petition Nos. 854, 716 and 856/2024 at the instance of the petitioner herein were considered by this Court and passed a