You are on page 1of 21

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~

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

&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. Sangita Bhalla. 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. Her r#cised e$am les. ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .Principles of Framing of Charges Page II ACKNO LEDGMENT I would like to thank our Honorable teacher Dr. for without her valuable guidance. detailed descri tions and enthusiastic a roach made m% efforts to flourish in a right direction.

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

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

34 228 5P9H7 4 +12: Cr.+ .2 5<arn7 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .Cal 3 Nohar Chand v. State of Mysore +122 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. It gives the accused accurate and recise information about the accusations made against him. 56'C7 . In all trials under the Code the accused is informed of the accusation in the beginning itself. 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%. 1 2 B. Since there was no a lication of mind b% the .the material on record did not show a rima facie case but the charges were framed b% the . 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%. &his )charge* is then to be read and e$ lained to the accused erson.ver% charge under this Code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged. 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.Principles of Framing of Charges Page V I. 3. State of Punjab +120 Cr.4. Ajit Kumar Saha. 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. 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. Provisions relating to charge are aimed at giving full notice to the accused about the offence of which he is charged.N. 34 +8. &his is vitall% im ortant to the accused in the re aration of his defence. Eshwaraiah0 two accused were se aratel% charged for committing murder in furtherance of common intention. Srikantiah v./ In State of Karnataka v.agistrate the order framing charges was set aside b% the High Court.agistrate. In the State v.

State +18: Cr 34 +-:-D Shyam Sunder Ker v. is a ver% serious lacuna in the roceedings and it materiall% reBudices the accused and his conviction for those cannot be maintained.+8 7 Chittranjandas v. !he State =IC +1.and /@:. 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 /@. HAT CHARGE CONTAINS AND ALTERATION OF CHARGE &he charge ma% not s ecif% articular items or e$act dates.P.2 In Musa Khan v. = charge is the first notice to the risoner of the matter whereof he is accused and which must conve% to him with sufficient clearness and certaint% what the rosecution intends to rove against him and of which he would have to clear himself. MEANING OF CHARGE Charge is an accusation made against a erson in res ect of an offence alleged to have been committed b% him. 1 5 6 Birichh Bhuian v. State of #. Since offence under Section /1. SC 0+1 9 Banama i !ri$athy v. State of ". State of Maharashtra the =dditional Sessions 4udge framed charges against the accused ersons under Section +01 and /1. =IC +18/ SC +818 8 Suraj Pa v. =IC +1. Em$eror =IC +10/ Pat -+- ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .2 34 . of the Penal Code comes into e$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... &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 is framed no charge under Section +01 for the same offence need be framed. &hat is where a charge under Section /1. ?here it is im ossible to s ecif% the articular date on which the offence was committed. State +18@ Cr 34 /+@D Krishnan v. the absence of s ecific charges against the accused under Section /@and /@:. State of Bihar =IC +18/ SC ++-@ Manna La v.: ?here an accused erson is charged. it will be sufficient to state two dates between which the offence was committed.Principles of Framing of Charges Page VI II.B. 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. III. of the Penal Code.

and secondl% to enable the court to kee in view the real oints in issue and to confine the evidence to such oints.2 <er 10 13 (aswantrai Mani a Akhaney v. Em$eror =IC +10.8 SC . 14 Bhimbadhar Pradhan v. even if such alteration does not affect his defence.+@ Sub!section 5-7 was rimaril% enacted so that ersons who showed a deficienc% in the accounts with which the% were entrusted could be convicted of criminal misa ro riation even when it could not be shown that the% had misa ro riated an% s ecified sum. it is shown b% the accused that he has in fact been misled b% such omissions or that there has been a failure of Bustice as a result of such omission.+0 &he irregularit% of charging together different offences instead of charging them se aratel% are curable under this section and Section 08. 'mission in a charge cannot be regarded as material unless in terms of Section -+. Em$eror =IC +1/2 PC +/@ 16 Sukha v.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.'udh 21 12 Krishnan v. !he State =IC +1. 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 'rissa =IC +1.8 SC 081 15 Babu a v. State of Maharashtra =IC +1:@ SC /. on the charge finall% referred against him. Em$eror =IC +1-1 .:.ad -@@ ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .++ &he obBect of Section -+/ is twofoldE first to ensure that the accused has sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged as otherwise he will be seriousl% reBudiced in his defence. +/ ?here the accused is not misled defect in the charge is not material.8 SC .+2 Fnder Section -+: the accused has a right to recall rosecution witnesses alter the alteration of the charge. if the accused is not reBudiced. +1Such right ma% be denied b% the Court if it is of the o inion that the ur ose is onl% dela% or ve$ation or defeating the 10 11 Chittaranjan %as v. State of Bomba% =IC +1. State of ".+/ 17 Kanti a v.+.1 18 Mathura !hakur 5+1@+7 8 C?6 :19 )ama in'a *dayar v. +: =n% addition or alteration of a charge will not be illegal onl% when it does not reBudice the accused.B. =IC +18/ SC +818 "a&ir Sin'h v.+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 )ajasthan =IC +1.

-.5P9H7 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .0 SC 0/8 23 Chandrama Prasaa Chaman 5+1. --@.+7 + Cal . However the Courts do not owe a legal dut% to ask the accused. after the charge has been altered to state whether he wishes to have an% of the witnesses recalled or re! e$amined and whether the wishes to call an% witnesses. 34 +/20 5<er7 Kanti a v.&here is no e$ce tion to the rule that there should be se arate charge for each offence. In Section -+1 which ermits a Boint trial for offences of the same kind not e$ceeding three in number and committed within a avoidance of a multi licit% of roceedings. Section -+2 is mandator% and for ever% distinct offence. In other words these sections are e$ce tions to the basic rules contained in Section -+25+7. &hese e$ce tions are based on some rational rinci le or other.inder Pa Sin'h v. "or the a lication of this section. --+ and --/ shall not be affected b% the above said basic rule. State of Punjab -@@0 Cri 34 +/-. State of +yderabad =IC +1. ?here two dacoities are committed in two different houses on the same night a single rolled u charge embracing both dacoities should not be framed. State of Maharashtra =IC +1:@ SC /.months whether committed in res ect of the same erson or not. State of Kera a +12. it is eriod of twelve months.-0 5a7.-+ IV. the rinci le is the 20 21 Moosa Abdu )ahiman v.$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 +.1 22 Aftab Ahmad Khan v. &he first art of this section relates to framing of charges.-@ &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.Cr.Principles of Framing of Charges Page VIII ends of Bustice. 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. there should be a se arate charge e$ce ting in those cases which are s ecified in the code./1 24 )a.-/ =ccording to sub!section 5-7 the o eration of Sections -+1.

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

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. &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.I In such a case however the accused can be charged with and tried in one trial for all such offences. 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. If several acts of which one or more than one would b% itself or themselves constitute an offence.$ce tion 0 to the basic ruleE Same act falling under different definitions of offences such offences ma% be tried at one trial. the offender shall not be unished with a more severe unishment than the court which tries him could award for an% one of such offences.$ce tion . the erson accused of them ma% be ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .$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.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. Section --@5-7 enables to have these offences tried at one trial. 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. 5e7 . 5d7 . constitute when combined a different offence. 5c7 . constitute when combined a different offence. ?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 .

-1 It was held in A. of which one or more than one would b% itself or themselves constitute an offence. if the evidence is such as is sufficient to establish that offence. "or e$am le a erson charged with ra e on a married woman cannot be alternativel% charged with adulter% with same woman and on the same facts as a com laint for adulter% should be actuall% instituted b% the husband. State of )ajasthan//+ =%odh%a Singh and Hira 29 30 !ri ockchand v. 5f7 . &he court under this section ma% frame cumulative charges or charges in the alternative. constitute. Section :+ of IPC rovides that where several acts. Nayak/@ that an accused erson cannot assert an% right to a Boint trial with his co!accused. the offender shall not be unished with a more severe unishment than the court which tries him could award for an% one of such offences.7 rovides that nothing contained in Section --@ shall affect Section :+ of the IPC. offences charged and offences shown b% evidence to have been committed must be cognate offences. )e0 =IC +101 =ll +2: +122 Cr. when combined. =ccording to some High Courts the actual commission of an offence and its abetments are also cognate offences. =ccording to sub!section 5+7 of Section --+ several offences under this section need not necessaril% be offences of same kind but ma% be offences of different kinds. a different offence.$ce tion 8 to the basic ruleE ?here it is doubtful what offence has been committed. But a charge alternativel% of two different offences under different section of IPC based on same facts is not ermissible under this section. It is the right of the rosecution to decide whom to rosecute. Section --@5.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XI charged with. Section --/ a lies onl% to trials and not to in(uiries. However. Antu ay v.). (g) . In Ayodhya Sin'h v. 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. However according to Section --@507 the accused erson can be charged with and tried at one trial for all such offences.SC -. = 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.S.$ce tion : to the basic ruleE Certain rovisions ma% be charged Bointl%. &he essential thing is that all of such offences must arise out of a single act or set of acts. 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. ).@+ ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . 34 +88+ SC 31 =IC +1:. such as criminal breach of trust and attem t to cheat.

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. &he two accused could conse(uentl% be charged and tried together./.. Clause 5e7 states an offence which includes theft means an offence of which theft is an essential ingredient. the legislature would have e$ ressed the same in so man% words. 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. &he common concert and agreement which constitute the cons irac% serve to unif% the acts done under it.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XII Singh were charged Bointl% for the offences under Section 0. 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. It is the continuit% of action and the sameness of ur ose that determine whether the events constitute the same transaction. 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 5a7 states that the words )same offence* means an offence arising out of the same act or series of acts.// Clause 5c7 states the words )within the meaning of Section -+1* indicate that. 32 33 Amar Sin'h v. It was considered that there had been mis!Boinder of charges.: read with Section :.&he% im l% that the accused erson must have acted in concert or association. State of Punjab =IC +18@ SC --8 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . IPC and under Section /2@ read with Section :. Identit% of time is not essential in determining whether certain events form the same transaction within the meaning of Section --/. IPC. State =IC +1.0 PunB +@8 K Satwant 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.

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

Centra Bureau13 of Investigation has e$amined the legal rovisions and authorities on framing of charge in criminal rosecutions. 5Crl. the sco e of Section --: of the Cr. 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. SC S. VII. &he Su reme Court in Sajjan Kumar Js. 34 35 +118 5/7 Crime 2.7 6o. ?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. the HonKble Su reme Court held as underE In #nion of 4ndia v.3. 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. 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.C. Prafu a Kumar Sama 15.P. &he withdrawal of charge or the sta% of en(uir% or trial is ossible onl% on the conviction being on an% other charge. &his oint was stressed b% the two!4udge Bench in Satish Mehra v.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.12 But it is a matter of regret that neither the courts nor the rosecution com lies with this section. %e hi Admn. FRAMING OF CHARGE Before invoking rovisions of Sections --: and --2 dealing with trials before the Court of Session. Section --0 allows withdrawal or sta% of charges onl% when conviction has been assed on one or more of the charges. 8/:0 of -@+@ 36 +1:1 =IC /88 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .P. =fter adverting to various decisions. was considered. ?hile reiterating the legal rinci les evolved b% the courts over the %ears.

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. 6ow the ne$t (uestion is whether a rima facie case has been made out against the a ellant. but has to consider the broad robabilities of the case. B% and large however if two views are e(uall% ossible and the 4udge is satisfied that the evidence roduced before him while giving rise to some sus icion but not grave sus icion against the accused.L In %i awar Ba u Kurane. the 4udge cannot act merel% as a ost office or a mouth iece of the rosecution. the total effect of the evidence and the documents roduced 37 5-@@-7 . the settled osition of law is that the 4udge while considering the (uestion of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted ower to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited ur ose of finding out whether or not a rima facie case against the accused has been made outD where the materials laced before the court disclose grave sus icion against the accused which has not been ro erl% e$ 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. an% basic infirmities a earing in the case and so on. 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. ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . he will be full% within his right to discharge the accused. &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.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. the total effect of the evidence and the documents roduced before the Court. but has to consider the broad robabilities of the case. and in e$ercising Burisdiction under Section --: of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In e$ercising owers under Section --: of the Code of Criminal Procedure. he will be full% Bustified to discharge the accused.SCC +/./: the rinci les enunciated in Prafu a Kumar Sama have been reiterated and it was heldE L+-.

+:. If there is no rima facie evidence or the evidence is totall% unworth% of credit. the . 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. 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. on the other hand. It is clear that at the initial stage. then it is not o en to the court to sa% that there is no sufficient ground for roceeding against the accused.C. +8. he must commit the case.P. cannot show that the accused committed the offence.idence for the imited $ur$ose of findin' out whether or not a $rima facie case a'ainst the accused has been made out. has the undoubted $ower to sift and wei'h the e.P. if an%.$ercise of Burisdiction under Sections --: 9 --2 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. 'n consideration of the authorities about the sco e of Section --: and --2 of the Code. 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.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. = . then there will be no sufficient ground for roceeding with the trial.P.C.agistrate en(uiring into a case under Section -@1 of the Cr. Prafu a Kumar Sama 7.. .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 .C. but onl% for seeing whether there is sufficient evidence for commitment. ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ . 6ii7 "here the materia s $ aced before the Court disc ose 'ra.C. It is also clear that in e$ercising Burisdiction under Section --: of Cr. He is entitled to sift and weigh the materials on record. if there is some evidence on which the conviction ma% reasonabl% be based. it is the dut% of the .P. &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. and not whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction. 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 test to determine $rima facie case wou d de$end u$on the facts of each case.agistrate to discharge the accused.

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

/ C=+07.V.> C.> C.B? ? 3"0084  M120+? S.-<F? L+B 1) P-02A-@.C.1..@-<(0-? !$6# B1..1@5-2  C=1./ C=+07-: P01)@1A5-2 +)< L+BF? T=.1@.@-<(0.9+.? !6.1./ C0181)+5 P0.=+21%+8? J(2.) ./ G@=+07-D 1) @0181)+5 .N.@-<(0-? DB1%-<1 L+B A7-)@: A55+=+9+<? R-A01).-0) B.)2 3"0!!4  R+.? C0181)+5 P0.C.<-? &.J(2..1.0+5 L+B P(951@+.1%.+)5+5 .. .0.1) C0181)+5 C+2-2F? E+2..-0) B./ C0181)+5 P0.<.? T=.<.)12? S.= -<1.. 3"0064 A0.1.01+5: T=.C.)? L-C12 N-C12 B(.R.L-7+5 B5.>2  K-5>+0? R.P.=2 +<=B+? N+7A(0 3"0044  S+0>+0D2? T=.= -<? C-).3"0!04  S+./ C0181)+5 P0.? EF0+81)7 .) E+2.? EF0+81)7 . D=10+*5+5? C.= P0.<.7? 3"0!!4 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .8A+): 3"00"4  J+1)? T+0()? EF0+81)7 . J(%-)15.@-<(0-? !6.-0B..= -<1.A@.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XVIII BIBLIOGRAPHY B./ O//-)<-02 A@.5+B 0-%121.1@.8A+):? L(@>).

1%-2.Principles of Framing of Charges Page XIX -921.8  =.95.=.7..A://BBB../-@=+07--1)-@0181)+5-./-@=+07--A01)@1A5-2-+)<-5+B.72A.-9@-1)<1+.1@5-2/"00"%"+#..1)/"0!!/08//0+81)7-.8/5+B:-0/+0.@.85 ~Code of Criminal Procedure~ .1)/"0!0/!0//0+81)7-.-2  =.=.A://5-7+5A-02A-@.A://BBB.=..01+55+B.5-7+595.85  =..