PROJECT REPORT

PRINCIPLES
OF

FRAMING
OF

CHARGES

SUBMITTED SUBMITTED BY: MS. ABHISHEK SINGLA ROLL NO.-04/08 SANGITA

TO : BHALLA

[Type the document title]
SE
MESTER-VIII

~Code of Criminal Procedure~

........................$ ITHDRA AL OF REMAINING CHARGES ON CONVICTION ON ONE OF SEVERAL CHARGES...................................................................................!0 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................IV ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ ...............................................................................................4 CONVICTION OF AN OFFENCE NOT CHARGED HEN SUCH OFFENCE IS INCLUDED IN OFFENCE CHARGED..................................................................................$ FRAMING OF CHARGE..............................................................# JOINDER OF CHARGES............................................................................................................................................II TABLE OF CASES......................................................................................................" HAT CHARGE CONTAINS AND ALTERATION OF CHARGE....................................................................................! MEANING OF CHARGE...............................................................................III INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................Principles of Framing of Charges Page I INDEX ACKNO LEDGMENT.............................................................................................................

Sangita Bhalla. detailed descri tions and enthusiastic a roach made m% efforts to flourish in a right direction. &he work contained herein is an amalgamation of the remarkable work of various authors and I am thankful to them for their ublications that have hel ed me re are this research a er to the best of m% abilities. ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . Her r#cised e$am les.Principles of Framing of Charges Page II ACKNO LEDGMENT I would like to thank our Honorable teacher Dr. for without her valuable guidance. constant encouragement and detailed a roach would not have made it ossible for me to make a ro er research for the to ic! Princi les of "raming of Charges.

./ O0122+ AIR !$&' SC 4'$  Biri hh Bhuian %. State !$'6 C0 LJ !"6"  Mathura Thakur 3!$0!4 ' C N 6"  Moosa Abdul (ahiman %. Emperor AIR !$"$ M+< "00  (a+inder Pal Singh %. State of -..H4  Shyam Sunder Ker %. State of Maharashtra AIR !$60 SC #&$  Krishnan %. #haneshram AIR !$"6 N+7 ""#  %. AIR !$4$ A55 !86  -nion of /ndia %. State !$6# C01 LJ &&!  &as'antrai Manilal Akhaney %. The State AIR !$&8 K-0 $4  Krishnan %. State of (a"asthan AIR !$&' SC &!#  Sura" Pal %.N. LJ #$4  Manna )al %. Menon %. "!"  Bhimbadhar Pradhan %.arma %. State of Kerala !$8" C0.+.89+: AIR !$&' SC &6&  K Sat'ant Singh %.Principles of Framing of Charges Page III TABLE OF CASES  Aftab Ahmad Khan %. State of Hyderabad AIR !$&4 SC 4#'  Amar Singh %... State of Mysore  Babulal %. Prafulla Kumar Samal 3"00"4 " SCC !#& ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . LJ 88' 3P.Kulkarni %. AIR !$'# SC !'$'  Emperor %. S. State of Bihar AIR !$'# SC !!"0  !handrama Prasaa !haman 3!$&!4 ! C+5 &#$  !hittaran"an #as %. State AIR !$&' A55 4''  Sukha %.(. State of Pun"ab "004 C01 LJ !#"" 3P. Emperor AIR !$#8 PC !#0  Banamali Tripathy %. (e. S. AIR !$&& SC 4!$  Trilo k hand %. State of Pun"ab AIR !$'0 SC ""'  Kantilal %. State !$'0 C0 LJ #!0  Sri (am . Kerala S./ B.H4  (amalinga *dayar %. State of $.+. The State AIR !$&8 LJ &!'  M. Emperor AIR !$4# P+. State of Maharashtra AIR !$60 SC #&$  Kantilal %.N. State of Pun"ab !$84 C0.B. Srikantiah %. LJ !#84 3K-04  Nohar !hand %.. State AIR !$&4 P()* !0'  B.+.!$6# C0.P.

Emperor AIR !$4" O(<= 8$ ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .Principles of Framing of Charges Page IV  $a0ir Singh %.

&his )charge* is then to be read and e$ lained to the accused erson.Principles of Framing of Charges Page V I. &his is vitall% im ortant to the accused in the re aration of his defence. 34 +8.2 5<arn7 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . Srikantiah v. It was held that there was no sco e for misunderstanding art la%ed b% each accused and therefore the defect in framing of the charge was a mere irregularit%.4.agistrate the order framing charges was set aside b% the High Court. 1 2 B. 3. Ajit Kumar Saha. Eshwaraiah0 two accused were se aratel% 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 resence of the other accused and the lea has been recorded in the resence of each of the accused and their advocates. 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 recise information about the accusations made against him. INTRODUCTION 'ne basic re(uirement of a fair trial in criminal cases is to give recise information to the accused as to the accusation against him. In case of serious offences the Code re(uires that the accusations are to be formulated and reduced to writing with great recision and clarit%. State of Punjab +120 Cr. 56'C7 . In the State v. Since there was no a lication of mind b% the ./ In State of Karnataka v. the court concerned must be e(ui ed with at least rima facie material to show that the erson who is sought to be charged is guilt% of an offence alleged against him. 34 228 5P9H7 4 +12: Cr. It is a basic rinci le of law that before summoning a erson to face a charge and more articularl% when a charge sheet is actuall% framed. State of Mysore +122 Cr.ver% charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged. In all trials under the Code the accused is informed of the accusation in the beginning itself.N.agistrate.Cal 3 Nohar Chand v.+ .the material on record did not show a rima facie case but the charges were framed b% the .

MEANING OF CHARGE Charge is an accusation made against a erson in res ect of an offence alleged to have been committed b% him.: ?here an accused erson is charged.. Em$eror =IC +10/ Pat -+- ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . State of Bihar =IC +18/ SC ++-@ Manna La v. &he charge framed in the above manner shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of Section -+1 rovided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not e$ceed one %ear. of the Penal Code comes into e$istence onl% when act of dacoit% is committed b% five or more ersons Bointl% the (uestions of a l%ing Section +01 was held to be mere sur lusage. =IC +1. !he State =IC +1. &hat is where a charge under Section /1.Principles of Framing of Charges Page VI II. =IC +18/ SC +818 8 Suraj Pa v. it will be sufficient to state two dates between which the offence was committed.2 In Musa Khan v. of the Penal Code. Since offence under Section /1.P.+8 7 Chittranjandas v. State of #. State +18: Cr 34 +-:-D Shyam Sunder Ker v. 8 &he basic re(uirement is that the charge must be so framed as to give the accused erson as fairl% reasonable idea of the case which he has to face and the validit% of the charge must be determined b% the a lication of the test vi> had the accused a reasonable sufficient notice of the matter with which he was charged.and /@:.B. State +18@ Cr 34 /+@D Krishnan v. State of Maharashtra the =dditional Sessions 4udge framed charges against the accused ersons under Section +01 and /1. HAT CHARGE CONTAINS AND ALTERATION OF CHARGE &he charge ma% not s ecif% articular items or e$act dates. III. of the Penal Code is framed no charge under Section +01 for the same offence need be framed. along with others under Section /@:A+01 and /@-A+01 of the Indian Penal Code but the others are ac(uitted and the accused alone is convicted under Section /@. is a ver% serious lacuna in the roceedings and it materiall% reBudices the accused and his conviction for those cannot be maintained. ?here it is im ossible to s ecif% the articular date on which the offence was committed.2 34 .. State of ". = charge is the first notice to the risoner of the matter whereof he is accused and which must conve% to him with sufficient clearness and certaint% what the rosecution intends to rove against him and of which he would have to clear himself. SC 0+1 9 Banama i !ri$athy v. the absence of s ecific charges against the accused under Section /@and /@:. 1 5 6 Birichh Bhuian v.

'mission in a charge cannot be regarded as material unless in terms of Section -+.8 SC .+.Principles of Framing of Charges Page VII It is ermissible to state in a charge under Section -+-5+7 that the articular offence was committed on or about certain date.:.+@ Sub!section 5-7 was rimaril% enacted so that ersons who showed a deficienc% in the accounts with which the% were entrusted could be convicted of criminal misa ro riation even when it could not be shown that the% had misa ro riated an% s ecified sum.8 SC 081 15 Babu a v. 14 Bhimbadhar Pradhan v. State of )ajasthan =IC +1. State of 'rissa =IC +1.+/ 17 Kanti a v. it is shown b% the accused that he has in fact been misled b% such omissions or that there has been a failure of Bustice as a result of such omission. In considering the (uestion whether the accused has been reBudiced in his defence b% the defect in the charge regard must be had to the fact that the obBection to the framing of the charge was not raised till a late stage in the roceedings. State of Maharashtra =IC +1:@ SC /. on the charge finall% referred against him. +: =n% addition or alteration of a charge will not be illegal onl% when it does not reBudice the accused.+8 &he Code gives am le ower to the courts to alter or amend a charge rovided that the accused has not to face for a new offence or is not reBudiced either b% kee ing him in the dark about that charge or in not giving a full o ortunit% of meeting it and utting forward an% defence o en to him. State of Bomba% =IC +1.8 SC . State of ".and secondl% to enable the court to kee in view the real oints in issue and to confine the evidence to such oints.+. +1Such right ma% be denied b% the Court if it is of the o inion that the ur ose is onl% dela% or ve$ation or defeating the 10 11 Chittaranjan %as v.B.1 18 Mathura !hakur 5+1@+7 8 C?6 :19 )ama in'a *dayar v.2 <er 10 13 (aswantrai Mani a Akhaney v.+2 Fnder Section -+: the accused has a right to recall rosecution witnesses alter the alteration of the charge. if the accused is not reBudiced. Em$eror =IC +1/2 PC +/@ 16 Sukha v. +/ ?here the accused is not misled defect in the charge is not material. !he State =IC +1. Em$eror =IC +10.+0 &he irregularit% of charging together different offences instead of charging them se aratel% are curable under this section and Section 08.ad -@@ ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .'udh 21 12 Krishnan v. =IC +18/ SC +818 "a&ir Sin'h v. Em$eror =IC +1-1 . even if such alteration does not affect his defence.++ &he obBect of Section -+/ is twofoldE first to ensure that the accused has sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged as otherwise he will be seriousl% reBudiced in his defence.

In Section -+1 which ermits a Boint trial for offences of the same kind not e$ceeding three in number and committed within a avoidance of a multi licit% of roceedings. JOINDER OF CHARGES &he obBect of the rule embodied in Section -+2 is to ensure a fair trial and to see that the accused is not bewildered b% having been asked to defend several unconnected charges or distinct offences lum ed together in one charge or in se arate charges.-0 5a7. --@.Cr. it is eriod of twelve months. State of Maharashtra =IC +1:@ SC /. there should be a se arate charge e$ce ting in those cases which are s ecified in the code. State of Punjab -@@0 Cri 34 +/-. &hese e$ce tions are based on some rational rinci le or other.Principles of Framing of Charges Page VIII ends of Bustice.inder Pa Sin'h v. "or the a lication of this section.&here is no e$ce tion to the rule that there should be se arate charge for each offence. &he first art of this section relates to framing of charges.5P9H7 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ ./1 24 )a. 34 +/20 5<er7 Kanti a v. --+ and --/ shall not be affected b% the above said basic rule. However the Courts do not owe a legal dut% to ask the accused. In other words these sections are e$ce tions to the basic rules contained in Section -+25+7.$ce tion + to the basic ruleE Section -+1 makes a rovision for one trial of three offences of the same kind committed b% one accused within a necessar% thatE  &he offences must be of the same kind eriod of +.0 SC 0/8 23 Chandrama Prasaa Chaman 5+1.months whether committed in res ect of the same erson or not. ?here two dacoities are committed in two different houses on the same night a single rolled u charge embracing both dacoities should not be framed. State of Kera a +12.1 22 Aftab Ahmad Khan v.-@ &he Code gives am le ower to the trial as well as = not giving a full o ellate Courts to alter or amend a charge rovided the accused has not to ortunit% of meeting it and utting forward an% defence o en to him on face a charge for a new offence or is not reBudiced either b% kee ing him in the dark or in the charge finall% referred against him. after the charge has been altered to state whether he wishes to have an% of the witnesses recalled or re! e$amined and whether the wishes to call an% witnesses. State of +yderabad =IC +1.-/ =ccording to sub!section 5-7 the o eration of Sections -+1. the rinci le is the 20 21 Moosa Abdu )ahiman v. -. Section -+2 is mandator% and for ever% distinct offence.+7 + Cal .-+ IV.

= transaction is defined b% Sir 4ames Ste hen )as a grou of facts so connected together as to be referred to b% a single name. it is necessar% to ascertain whether the% are so connected together as to constitute a whole which can ro erl% be described as a transaction.months from the first to last  &hat the number of them should not e$ceed three. &he =llahabad High Court has ointed out in this connection that each of the four Sections -+1.N. Fse cannot be made of two or more of these sections together to Bustif% a Boinder. Fnder Section --@5+7 it is stated that if. --@. he ma% be charged with and tried at one trial ever% such offence. 34 /10 Sri )am -arma v.+ 28 Em$eror v.-: "urther it has been observed that the normal rule as embodied in Section -+1 or --@ or --+ or --/. %haneshram =IC +1-: 6ag --/ ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . -8 In other words it is not o en to the rosecution to take hel artl% of one section and artl% of another in order to Bustif% the Boinder of charges.). It is not the intention of the 3egislature to grou together different sections in order to constitute an e$ce tion. &he real and substantial test b% same transaction de ends on 25 26 M.-. State +1:/ Cri 34 .ach section is to be an e$ce tion individuall%. &here are conflicting Budicial o inions as to whether Sections -+1!--+ and --/ are mutuall% e$clusive or whether the% can be used to get a cumulative effect. --+ and --/ mentioned in Section -+2 can individuall% be relied u on as Bustif%ing a Boinder of charges in res ect of an% trial.Ku karni v.to the basic ruleE 'ffences committed in course of same transaction can be charged at one trial. . State =IC +1. Kera a State +1:/ Cr. Menon v. in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed b% the same erson.Principles of Framing of Charges Page IX  &hat the% must be committed within the s ace of +. wrong or an% other subBect of in(uir% which ma% be in issue..* &he (uestion whether a series of facts are so connected together as to form the same transaction is a (uestion of fact in each case de ending on ro$imit% of time and lace continuit% of action and communit% of ur ose or design.-2 5b7 .8 =ll 088 27 . In other words.$ce tion . the (uestion is whether it is o en to the rosecution to take hel artl% of one section and artl% of another section in order to Bustif% the Boinder of charges or whether the intention of law is that sections should be mutuall% e$clusive and onl% one of the them can be availed of at one time. In order to determine whether a grou of facts constitute one. as crime.. a contract.

Principles of Framing of Charges Page X whether the% are so related to one another in oint of ur ose or as cause and effect or as rinci al and subsidiar% acts as to constitute one continuous action. If several acts of which one or more than one would b% itself or themselves constitute an offence.$ce tion 0 to the basic ruleE Same act falling under different definitions of offences such offences ma% be tried at one trial. 5d7 . constitute when combined a different offence. the erson accused of them ma% be charged with and tried at one trial for the offence constituted b% such acts when combined and for an% offence constituted b% an%one or more of such actsGSection --@5/7. &his section ma% be convenientl% read with Section :+ of the IPC which inter alia rovides that Hwhere an%thing is an offence falling within two or more se arate definitions of an% law in force for the time being b% which offences are defined or unished. the erson accused of them ma% be ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . the offender shall not be unished with a more severe unishment than the court which tries him could award for an% one of such offences. Section --@5-7 enables to have these offences tried at one trial. ?hen a erson charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misa ro riation of ro ert% as rovided in Section -+-5-7 or in Section -+15+7 is accused of committing for the ur ose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences one or more offences of falsification of accounts he ma% be charged with and tried at one trial for ever% such offenceGSection --@5-7 . 5e7 . to basic ruleE =cts forming an offence also constituting different offences when taken se aratel% or in grou sGall such offences to be tried at one trialGIf several acts of which one or more than one would b% itself or themselves constitute an offence. 5c7 .I In such a case however the accused can be charged with and tried in one trial for all such offences. constitute when combined a different offence.an% a time the offence of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misa ro riation of ro ert% is accom anied with the offence of falsification of accounts the latter offence being committed for the ur ose of facilitating or concealing the commission of the former offence.$ce tion / to the basic ruleE 'ffences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misa ro riation of ro ert% and their com anion offences of falsification of accounts to be tried at one trial.$ce tion .

But a charge alternativel% of two different offences under different section of IPC based on same facts is not ermissible under this section. State of )ajasthan//+ =%odh%a Singh and Hira 29 30 !ri ockchand v. 34 +88+ SC 31 =IC +1:. Sub!section 5-7 rovides that a man ma% be convicted of an offence although there has been no charge in res ect of it. of which one or more than one would b% itself or themselves constitute an offence.7 rovides that nothing contained in Section --@ shall affect Section :+ of the IPC. &he court under this section ma% frame cumulative charges or charges in the alternative. It is the right of the rosecution to decide whom to rosecute. "or e$am le a erson charged with ra e on a married woman cannot be alternativel% charged with adulter% with same woman and on the same facts as a com laint for adulter% should be actuall% instituted b% the husband. =ccording to sub!section 5+7 of Section --+ several offences under this section need not necessaril% be offences of same kind but ma% be offences of different kinds. However. a different offence.@+ ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .). if the evidence is such as is sufficient to establish that offence. constitute. 5f7 . (g) . Nayak/@ that an accused erson cannot assert an% right to a Boint trial with his co!accused. when combined.S.$ce tion 8 to the basic ruleE ?here it is doubtful what offence has been committed. )e0 =IC +101 =ll +2: +122 Cr. ).SC -. and tried at one trial for the offence constituted b% such acts when combined and fro an% offence constituted b% an% one or more of such actsGSection --@507.$ce tion : to the basic ruleE Certain rovisions ma% be charged Bointl%. Section :+ of IPC rovides that where several acts. Section --@5. Section --/ a lies onl% to trials and not to in(uiries. Antu ay v. = Boint trial of several ersons under this section is not vitiated merel% b% the facts that at the end of the trial the facts found ha en to be different from those on the basis of which the charges were originall% framed. In Ayodhya Sin'h v. &he essential thing is that all of such offences must arise out of a single act or set of acts. However according to Section --@507 the accused erson can be charged with and tried at one trial for all such offences.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XI charged with.-1 It was held in A. offences charged and offences shown b% evidence to have been committed must be cognate offences. such as criminal breach of trust and attem t to cheat. the offender shall not be unished with a more severe unishment than the court which tries him could award for an% one of such offences. =ccording to some High Courts the actual commission of an offence and its abetments are also cognate offences.

State =IC +1. Clause 5a7 states that the words )same offence* means an offence arising out of the same act or series of acts. the legislature would have e$ ressed the same in so man% words. IPC. 32 33 Amar Sin'h v. It was held b% the Su reme Court that the accused Bointl% committed the offences with which the% were charged and that those offences were committed in the course of same transaction.&he% im l% that the accused erson must have acted in concert or association. &he two accused could conse(uentl% be charged and tried together.0 PunB +@8 K Satwant Sin'h v.: read with Section :. Clause 5b7 states that the Boinder of three charges under Section 0-@ of the IPC against one accused with three charges of abetment of those offences against another accused is legall% ermissible and ro er./.. Clause 5d7 states that the offence of cons irac% and the offences committed b% each cons irator in ursuance of the cons irac% are Hoffences committed in the course of the same transactionI within the meaning of Section --@ and ersons accused of such offences can be tried Bointl% b% one trial. It is the continuit% of action and the sameness of ur ose that determine whether the events constitute the same transaction. State of Punjab =IC +18@ SC --8 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . It was considered that there had been mis!Boinder of charges. IPC and under Section /2@ read with Section :. what was meant b% the words )offence of the same kind* in clause 5c7 of Section --/ is the same thing as was meant b% the identical e$ ression used in Section -+15+7 defined in Section -+15-7 and nothing more. Identit% of time is not essential in determining whether certain events form the same transaction within the meaning of Section --/.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XII Singh were charged Bointl% for the offences under Section 0. If it was intention of the legislature to rovide that the number of offences for which several accused ersons could be tried under clause 5c7 of Section --/ should be limited to three as rovided in Section -+15+7.// Clause 5c7 states the words )within the meaning of Section -+1* indicate that. Clause 5e7 states an offence which includes theft means an offence of which theft is an essential ingredient. &he common concert and agreement which constitute the cons irac% serve to unif% the acts done under it.

--+ and --/. &he sections containing the e$ce tion are onl% enabling rovisions. = se arate trial is alwa%s desirable whenever there is risk of reBudice to the accused in a Boint trial. However ersons found in ersons at different times. Power of Court to order se arate trial in cases where Boinder of charges or of offenders is ermissible &he basic rule regarding charge is that for ever% distinct offence there shall be a se arate charge and for ever% such charge there shall be a se arate trial.  ?here facts are roved which reduce the offence charged to a minor offence. = Boint trial of a ver% large number of charges is ver% much to be de recated even though it is not rohibited b% law. &he onl% e$ce tion recognised is contained in Sections -+1. ITHDRA AL OF REMAINING CHARGES ON CONVICTION ON ONE OF SEVERAL CHARGES ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . VI. = court has got the discretion to order a se arate trial even though the case is covered b% one of the e$ce tions enabling a Boint trial. &herefore where different receiving stolen ro erties stolen at one theft were received b% several ro erties. CONVICTION OF AN OFFENCE NOT CHARGED HEN SUCH OFFENCE IS INCLUDED IN OFFENCE CHARGED Section --.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XIII Clause 5f7 states that the e$ ression ) ossession of which has been transferred b% one offence* refers to the original theft of the ro ert% stolen on one occasion. --@. &his section is an e$ce tion to the rule that a erson cannot be convicted of an offence with which he is not charged. V.contem lates a conviction of minor offence included in the offence charged in either of the two casesE  ?here the offence charged consists of several articulars a combination of some onl% of which constitutes a com lete minor offence and such combination is roved but the remaining articulars are not roved. &herefore se arate trial is the rule and the Boint trial is an e$ce tion. all or an% of such receivers can be tried Bointl% for their offences of ossession of such stolen ro erties secured b% different thefts cannot be tried Bointl% under this clause. But there can be no conviction for maBor offence on a charge of minor one.

the sco e of Section --: of the Cr. &he withdrawal of charge or the sta% of en(uir% or trial is ossible onl% on the conviction being on an% other charge. was considered.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XIV ?hen a charge containing more heads than one is framed and the conviction has been had on one or more of them the com lainant or the erson conducting the rosecution ma% with the consent of the Court withdraw the remaining charge or charges or the Court ma% of its own accord sta% en(uir% or trial of such charge. 34 35 +118 5/7 Crime 2. %e hi Admn.12 But it is a matter of regret that neither the courts nor the rosecution com lies with this section. 8/:0 of -@+@ 36 +1:1 =IC /88 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . &he Su reme Court in Sajjan Kumar Js. &his oint was stressed b% the two!4udge Bench in Satish Mehra v. Section --0 allows withdrawal or sta% of charges onl% when conviction has been assed on one or more of the charges.P. FRAMING OF CHARGE Before invoking rovisions of Sections --: and --2 dealing with trials before the Court of Session. ?hile reiterating the legal rinci les evolved b% the courts over the %ears. 5Crl. =fter adverting to various decisions.3.P.7 6o. It ma% reduce the workload of the courts if the trial courts insist u on the rosecution to strictl% com l% with the rovisions of Section --8 of the Code inasmuch as the courts can discharge the accused if there is no rima facie case. Centra Bureau13 of Investigation has e$amined the legal rovisions and authorities on framing of charge in criminal rosecutions. Prafu a Kumar Sama 15. SC S. VII. this Court has enumerated the following rinci lesE L5+7 &hat the 4udge while considering the (uestion of framing the charges under Section --: of the Code has the undoubted ower to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited ur ose of finding out whether or not a rima facie case against the accused has been made out. the HonKble Su reme Court held as underE In #nion of 4ndia v. ?hen before the beginning of the trial the ublic rosecutor withdraws the charge of the offence under one head the section has no a lication. no court takes note of Section --8 which obliges the rosecution to describe the charge brought against the accused and state b% what evidence the guilt of the accused would be roved.C.

&his however does not mean that the 4udge should make a roving en(uir% into the ros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. the total effect of the evidence and the documents roduced before the Court. he will be full% within his right to discharge the accused. an% basic infirmities a earing in the case and so on. but has to consider the broad robabilities of the case. the 4udge cannot act merel% as a ost office or a mouth iece of the rosecution. and in e$ercising Burisdiction under Section --: of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5/7 &he test to determine a rima facie case would naturall% de end u on the facts of each case and it is difficult to la% down a rule of universal a lication. he will be full% Bustified to discharge the accused. but has to consider the broad robabilities of the case./: the rinci les enunciated in Prafu a Kumar Sama have been reiterated and it was heldE L+-. the total effect of the evidence and the documents roduced 37 5-@@-7 . B% and large however if two views are e(uall% ossible and the 4udge is satisfied that the evidence roduced before him while giving rise to some sus icion but not grave sus icion against the accused. ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . the settled osition of law is that the 4udge while considering the (uestion of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted ower to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited ur ose of finding out whether or not a rima facie case against the accused has been made outD where the materials laced before the court disclose grave sus icion against the accused which has not been ro erl% e$ lained the court will be full% Bustified in framing a charge and roceeding with the trialD b% and large if two views are e(uall% ossible and the 4udge is satisfied that the evidence roduced before him while giving rise to some sus icion but not grave sus icion against the accused.L In %i awar Ba u Kurane. 6ow the ne$t (uestion is whether a rima facie case has been made out against the a ellant. 507 &hat in e$ercising his Burisdiction under Section --: of the Code the 4udge which under the resent Code is a senior and e$ erienced court cannot act merel% as a Post 'ffice or a mouth iece of the rosecution.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XV 5-7 ?here the materials laced before the Court disclose grave sus icion against the accused which has not been ro erl% e$ lained the Court will be full% Bustified in framing a charge and roceeding with the trial. In e$ercising owers under Section --: of the Code of Criminal Procedure.SCC +/.

it is the dut% of the . Prafu a Kumar Sama 7. but onl% for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment.agistrate should not make a roving en(uir% into the ros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial. the following rinci les emergeE! 6i7 !he (ud'e whi e considerin' the 8uestion of framin' the char'es under Section 99: of the Cr. he must commit the case. if there is some evidence on which the conviction ma% reasonabl% be based.e sus$icion a'ainst the accused which has not been $ro$er y e0$ ained/ the Court wi be fu y justified in framin' a char'e and $roceedin' with the tria . He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record.P. It is also clear that in e$ercising Burisdiction under Section --: of Cr.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XVI before the court but should not make a roving en(uir% into the ros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial 5see #nion of 4ndia v. !he test to determine $rima facie case wou d de$end u$on the facts of each case. It is clear that at the initial stage. If the evidence which the rosecution ro oses to adduce rove the guilt of the accused even if full% acce ted before it is challenged in cross!e$amination or rebutted b% the defence evidence. 6ii7 "here the materia s $ aced before the Court disc ose 'ra.P. if there is a strong sus icion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for resuming that the accused has committed an offence. on the other hand. ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .C. = .P. is not to act as a mere Post 'ffice and has to come to a conclusion whether the case before him is fit for commitment of the accused to the Court of Session. If there is no rima facie evidence or the evidence is totall% unworth% of credit.C.. .$ercise of Burisdiction under Sections --: 9 --2 of Cr.agistrate to discharge the accused. cannot show that the accused committed the offence. +:. then it is not o en to the court to sa% that there is no sufficient ground for roceeding against the accused. then there will be no sufficient ground for roceeding with the trial. the . +8.C.C. if an%.P.idence for the imited $ur$ose of findin' out whether or not a $rima facie case a'ainst the accused has been made out. 'n consideration of the authorities about the sco e of Section --: and --2 of the Code.agistrate en(uiring into a case under Section -@1 of the Cr. &he resum tion of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is onl% for the ur ose of deciding rima facie whether the Court should roceed with the trial or not. has the undoubted $ower to sift and wei'h the e. and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction.

ii7 4f two .idence and the documents $roduced before the Court/ any basic infirmities etc.i7 At the sta'e of Sections 99: and 99. 6i. 6.en if it is o$$osed to common sense or the broad $robabi ities of the case.e sus$icion/ the tria (ud'e wi be em$owered to dischar'e the accused and at this sta'e/ he is not to see whether the tria wi end in con.a ue of the materia on record cannot be 'one into but before framin' a char'e the Court must a$$ y its judicia mind on the materia $ aced on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was $ossib e.er/ at this sta'e/ there cannot be a ro.a uate the materia and documents on record with a .ed beyond reasonab e doubt that the accused has committed the offence.a ue disc oses the e0istence of a the in'redients constitutin' the a e'ed offence.iew to find out if the facts emer'in' therefrom taken at their face .iction or ac8uitta .en at that initia sta'e to acce$t a that the $rosecution states as 'os$e truth e.in' en8uiry into the $ros and cons of the matter and wei'h the e./ the Court is re8uired to e.e .e committed offence/ it can frame the char'e/ thou'h for con. 6. <or this imited $ur$ose/ sift the e.iews are $ossib e and one of them 'i. 6.idence as if he was conductin' a tria . ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .idence as it cannot be e0$ected e.7 At the time of framin' of the char'es/ the $robati.es rise to sus$icion on y/ as distin'uished from 'ra.7 4f on the basis of the materia on record/ the Court cou d form an o$inion that the accused mi'ht ha.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XVII 6iii7 !he Court cannot act mere y as a Post *ffice or a mouth$iece of the $rosecution but has to consider the broad $robabi ities of the case/ the tota effect of the e.iction the conc usion is re8uired to be $ro. +owe.

3"0!04  S+. J(%-)15./ C=+07.8A+):? L(@>).1@.? EF0+81)7 ./ G@=+07-D 1) @0181)+5 .P./ O//-)<-02 A@.> C.+)5+5 .01+5: T=.>2  K-5>+0? R.1.J(2.@-<(0-? !$6# B1.-0) B.1.= P0.-0) B. D=10+*5+5? C../ C0181)+5 P0.) E+2.=+21%+8? J(2.8A+): 3"00"4  J+1)? T+0()? EF0+81)7 .5+B 0-%121./ C0181)+5 P0.N.? C0181)+5 P0.=2 +<=B+? N+7A(0 3"0044  S+0>+0D2? T=.1%.. 3"0064 A0.? EF0+81)7 .? !6.)2 3"0!!4  R+..C.B? ? 3"0084  M120+? S.R.0+5 L+B P(951@+.<.-<F? L+B 1) P-02A-@.> C.0.1.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XVIII BIBLIOGRAPHY B.? T=.@-<(0.1.= -<? C-). .= -<1.<.C.1@..)? L-C12 N-C12 B(.)12? S.) ...C.L-7+5 B5.A@.1@5-2  C=1.<-? &./ C0181)+5 P0.@-<(0-? !6.7? 3"0!!4 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .1) C0181)+5 C+2-2F? E+2.@-<(0-? DB1%-<1 L+B A7-)@: A55+=+9+<? R-A01).= -<1.-0B..V.<./ C=+07-: P01)@1A5-2 +)< L+BF? T=.9+.

/-@=+07--1)-@0181)+5-..85  =.72A.-2  =.8/5+B:-0/+0.A://BBB.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XIX -921.01+55+B.7..95.=.8  =.1)/"0!!/08//0+81)7-.A://BBB.A://5-7+5A-02A-@.1)/"0!0/!0//0+81)7-.1@5-2/"00"%"+#.5-7+595../-@=+07--A01)@1A5-2-+)<-5+B.85 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .=.=.1%-2..-9@-1)<1+..@.