JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

LAW FACULTY

JOINDER OF ACCUSED

SUBMITTED TO – PROF. (Dr) MOHAMMAD ASAD MALIK

SUBMITTED BY – SHAHBAZ KHAN MEHAR
BA.LLB.(Hons.)
SEMESTER – X
SEC- B
ROLL No. 15BLW0070
TABLE OF CONTENT
 Acknowledgement
 Introduction
 Joinder of Charges
 Distinct offence and Separate offence
 Exception to sec 223
 Bibliography
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my profound sense of gratitude towards the almighty for providing me
with the authentic circumstances which were mandatory for the completion of my project.

I am highly indebted to Prof. (Dr) Mohammad Asad Malik at Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia
Islamia University, New Delhi for providing me with constant encouragement and guidance
through the preparation of this project.

My cardinal thanks are also to my parents, friends and all teachers of law department in our
college who have always been the source of my inspiration and motivation without which I
would have never been able to unabridged my project.
INTRODUCTION

The basic idea behind the framing of charges before a trial is initiated is that the accused
should be informed in a clear, concise and precise manner the allegations which have been
raised against him by the victim in front of the court. It is imperative for the accused to know
what the court intends to charge him with, which the prosecution requires to prove.

The charge is defined under Section 2(b) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure,

1973. According to which, “charges means the head of the charge when there are more
than one charges”. To put it in a more straightforward language, after the trial is initiated,
the accused person is informed about the allegations which have been raised against him and
the provisions of the Code under which he would be tried by the Court. The accusations put
up against the accused are thus known as ‘Charges’ in the legal language.

The Charge is a document setting out a precise formulation of the specific accusation made
against a person who is entitled to know its nature at a very early stage.

According to “legal dictionary” charge denotes accusation of a crime which precedes a

formal trial. It is an accusation made in a legal manner of illegal conduct either of omission or
commission by the person charged.

The object of framing charge is one of the fundamental principle of justice which is that the
accused should know what’s the charge against him so that he build his defence in regard to
that charge.1

Joinder of Charges 

1
Mainpal v State of Haryana, 2010.
In the case of K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab2 that the sections of joinder of charges are
not compelling in nature. They only permit the joint trial of charges under certain
circumstances, and the courts may consider the same in the interest of the administration of
justice after thoroughly studying the facts and circumstances of each case. 

Essential provision related to framing of Charges

 The general principle regarding charges as purported by s. 218 of the Code Of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 is that every offence of which a particular has been
accused shall come under a separate charge and each such charge shall be tried
separately and distinctly. This means that each offence has to be treated as a separate
entity and should be tried distinctively. 

 But, Section 218(2) carves out exceptions to Section 218(1). The provisions

of Section 219, 220, 221 and Section 223, override the provisions as mentioned under
Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This means that Section 219-
223 talks about the Joinder of Charges. 

The exceptions to Section 218 

Exception 1 

Three offences which are of the same kind, committed within a year may be charged
together: This section has been provided to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings when the
offences are of the same kind. It contains two circumstances: 

1. According to Section 219(1), if a person has been accused of three offences of the
same kind then the person can be tried for all the offences together if they have been
committed within a span of twelve months from the first to the last offence. 

2. Section 219(2) talks about the offences which are of the same kind, also punishable
with the same quantum of punishment. 

Exception 2 

2
AIR 1960 SC 266.
Offences which are committed in the course of the same transaction and tried together. It
consists of the following: 

1. If a person has committed a series of acts, which are so intrinsically connected

together that they form a single transaction, such series of offences shall be charged
and tried together. The word ‘transaction’ has not been defined under the Code

2. In case of offences of Criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of

property and their companion offences of falsification of accounts. Many a time, the
offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property are
committed along with the offence such as falsification of accounts etc., the latter
offence committed in order to fulfil the objective of the former offence. In such
cases, Section 220(2) enables the Courts to try such offences together. 

3. If a single act falls under within different and separate definitions of offences, such
different offences shall be tried together as mentioned under Section 220(3).  For e.g.:
If a person X, wrongfully strikes a person Y with a cane, then X can either be charged
with and tried separately of offences under Sections 352 and Sections 323 of
the Indian Penal Code or may be tried and convicted together. 

4.  If the acts which form an offence, also constitute different offences when separately
taken and tried or taken in groups, such offences shall be tried to be one in a single
trial.  For e.g.: If A commits the offence of robbery on B, and while doing so he
voluntarily causes hurt to B, then A may be separately charged with, and convicted of
the offences mentioned under Sections 323, 392 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. 

Exception 3 

Section 221 provides for the cases wherein there is some doubt related to the circumstances
and incidents which took place during the commission of the offence. According to this
section, if the accused has committed a series of acts which lead to confusion regarding the
facts should be proved, the accused might be charged with any or all of such offences or
charged for alternative offences. In such cases, the accused is charged for one offence and
during the stage of evidence, if it is proved that he has committed a different offence, he may
be convicted for the same even though he was not charged with the same. 

Exception 4 
Section 223 talks about the class of persons who can be tried jointly. This section permits a
joint trial of several persons under the specified circumstances as there exists some nexus
among the various offences committed. The various classes shall not be treated as mutually
exclusive and could be combined together if necessary. According to this section, the
following classes of persons may be tried and charged together: 

1. The accused persons who have committed the same offence in the course of the same
transaction.

2. The persons who have committed a particular offence and those who have abetted the
commission. 

3. The persons who are covered under the ambit of Section 219.

4. The persons who in the same course of the transaction have committed different
offences.

5. The persons who have committed offences such as theft, extortion, cheating, or
criminal misappropriation of the property along with the persons who have received,
retained, assisted in the disposal or concealment of property, possession of which is
illegal and has been alleged to be illegal. 

6. The persons who have been accused of commission of offences under Section 411
and section 414 of the Indian Penal Code or under those sections in respect of stolen
property, possession of which has already been transferred by another offence.

7. The persons who have been accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian
Penal Code related to the counterfeit coins.

The accused persons whose cases have not been covered under any of the classes of Section
223, cannot himself claim a joint trial. The proviso to this Section puts a check on the
discretionary power of the court. 

The rules contained from Section 218 to Section 223 have been made for the benefit of the
accused. It is not required to treat the various classes of sections as mutually exclusive. The
Courts have been given the authority to combine the provisions of more than two clauses.
The joint trial of several persons partly by applying one clause and by partly applying another
clause has also been authorised. 
Power of court to order separate trial in cases wherein joinder of charges or of
offenders is permissible

 The general rule in case of charges is that there shall be a separate charge for every
distinct offence, which shall be tried separately. But, Sections 219, 220, 221 and
Section 223 carve out the exceptions to this basic rule. In simpler words, a separate
trial is a rule while a joint trial is its exception. 

 The provisions regarding the exceptions have only enabling nature, and it is at the
discretion of the Courts whether or not to apply them to a particular case. In the case
of Ranchod Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh3 it was held that it is at the discretion
of the court whether to apply Section 219, Section 220 and section 223 of the Code
Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or resort to Section 218. The accused has not been
given this right to resort to joinder of charges. 

 The question regarding the misjoinder of charges and joint trial for distinct offences
was answered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union Of India v. Ajeet Singh4 It
was held by the court that the principles underlying the provisions in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 only act as a guiding principle. 

Conviction of an offence not charged when such offence is included in the offence charged 

If the accused is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, some of which if
combined and proved to form a minor offence, then he may be convicted of such minor
offence.5 Although the meaning of the term ‘minor offence’ is not defined under the code, it
means an offence which has lesser punishment than the other offence of which the accused
has been charged. 

Applicability of provisions related to joinder of charges in cases where no charge has been
formally made 

It is not necessary in the summons cases to frame a formal charge. Mere stating to the
accused the particulars of the offences which he has been charged with would suffice. In such
cases, the question related to the applicability of provisions of joinder of charges arises. Such
a question has not been expressly dealt with by the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

3
AIR 1965 SC 1248.
4
(2013) 4 SCC 186.
5
Section 222 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
But, it has been established via a number of precedents like in the case of  Upendra Nath
Biswas v. Emperor6 Indramani v. Chanda Bewa7 that the provisions of joinder of cases are
equally applicable to the summons case also. 

DISTINCT OFFENCE AND SEPARATE OFFENCE

In the case of Banwarilal Jhunjunwala & Ors v Union of India8 the Supreme Court drew the
distinction between distinct offence and separate offence by stating that, “Section 233 of Cr.
P.C. reads that “"For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a
separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases
mentioned in sections 234, 235, 236, and 239." The expression 'every distinct offence' must
have a different content from the expression 'every offence' or 'each offence'. A separate
charge is required for every distinct offence and not necessarily for each separate offence.
The question is, what is meant by 'every distinct offence'? 'Distinct' means 'not identical'. It
stresses characteristics that distinguish while the word 'separate' would stress the 'two things
not being the same.' Two offences would be distinct if they be not in any way inter-related. If
there be some inter-relation, there would be not distinctness and it would depend on the
circumstances of the case in which the offences were committed whether there be separate
charges for those offences or not.”

In Chunoo v State9 Justice Kidwai had said that, “The use of the word 'distinct' is of great
significance and the Legislature having inserted it, we must, so far as possible, give it a
meaning and not treat it as redundant. `Every distinct offence' cannot be treated as having the
same meaning as 'every offence'. The only meaning that the word 'distinct' can have in the
context in which it occurs is to indicate that there should be no connection between the
various acts which give rise to criminal liability. If there is such a connection, one action is
not 'distinct' from other actions and each of them, even if it constitutes an offence, does not
constitute a 'distinct' offence". In the case of Sudheendra Kumar Ray V. Emperor10 the court
observed that were a person who was chased by two constables had fired at them several
times, but it seems to have been rightly assumed that the firing did not constitute more than
one offence, though the point was not specifically raised or decided. In Promotha Natha Ray
6
ILR (1913) 41 Cal, 694.
7
1956 Cri LJ 1218.
8
MANU/UP/ 0159/1954.
9
MANU/UP/0314/1954.
10
ILR 60 Cal 643.
v. King Emperor11 one charge was framed under s. 406 I.P.C., with respect to dealing with
several books of accounts. It was held that the books formed one set of account books of the
estate, were found together in two locked boxes the keys being with the appellant, and that
therefore they may be fairly regarded as one item of property with which the appellant was
dealing in one particular way. It was not accepted that a separate offence was committed with
respect to each of the books.

EXCEPTION TO SEC 223

There are two major exceptions to section 223. They are as follows-

 Juveniles can’t be joined in trial with adults;

 Any person who has agreed to become an approver and on whom the benefits of
section 306, 307 & 308 apply.

In Gopinath Ghosh v State of West Bengal 12 appellant Gopinath Ghosh was convicted by
the learned additional Sessions court, Nadia along with Bharat Ghosh and Jagannath Ghosh
u.s. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for having committed murder of Ravi
Ghosh s/o Kartik Ghosh on august 19, 1974. Appellant Ghosh along with the other two
accused were convicted by the sessions court under sec 302 IPC. The appellants preferred an
appeal and the appellate court held that the appellant no 1 can’t be tried with the other
appellants as he was below 21 years of age.

In the case of State v Kalyan Singh13 The Supreme court directed the Court of Sessions to
frame an additional charge under Section 120-B against Mr. L.K. Advani, Mr. Vinay Katiar,
Ms. Uma Bharati, Ms. Sadhvi Ritambara, Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi and Mr. Vishnu Hari
Dalmia. The Court of Sessions will frame additional charges under Section 120-B and the
other provisions of the Penal Code mentioned in the joint charge sheet filed by the CBI
against Mr. Champat Rai Bansal, Mr. Satish Pradhan, Mr. Dharam Das, Mr. Mahant Nritya
Gopal Das, Mr. Mahamadleshwar Jagdish Muni, Mr. Ram Bilas Vadanti, Mr. Vaikunth Lal
Sharma @ Prem, and Dr. Satish Chandra Nagar. Mr. Kalyan Singh, being the Governor of
Rajasthan, is entitled to immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution as long as he remains

11
17 CWN 479.
12
1984 AIR 237.
13
Cri. LJ 751 OF 2017.
Governor of Rajasthan. The Court of Sessions will frame charges and move against him as
soon as he ceases to be Governor.
The Court of Sessions will, after transfer of the proceedings from Rae Bareilly to Lucknow
and framing of additional charges, within four weeks, take up all the matters on a day-to-day
basis from the stage at which the trial proceedings, both at Rae Bareilly and at Lucknow, are
continuing, until conclusion of the trial. There shall be no de novo trial. There shall be no
transfer of the Judge conducting the trial until the entire trial concludes. The case shall not be
adjourned on any ground except when the Sessions Court finds it impossible to carry on the
trial for that particular date. In such an event, on grant of adjournment to the next day or a
closely proximate date, reasons for the same shall be recorded in writing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTES REFERRED

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 Constitution of India.

BOOKS REFERRED

 Andrew Ashworth. The Criminal process an evaluation study; 2nd edition;

Oxford University Press; 1998; pg. 176 to 180.
 Criminal Procedure; R.V. Kelkar; 6th edition; Eastern Book Company.