Cort] { ponlup at Jo Kiquiassy yessuan 2xn used in Lecture 6."” These provisions are essentially meant to ate fair tal 5.” Presumption of innocence and burden of proof ‘The adversary ss stem of trial that we have adopted is based on «h acausaionial method” and the burden of proving the guilt of the accused 18 wpon the prosecution and unless it relieves stsell of that burden, the court cannot record a tinding of the guilt of the accused.’ Every criminal tal begins with the presumption of innocence 1n favour of the accused: and the provisions ot the Code are so framed that a criminal tal sho 719TH) 1 SCC 248 21K 1978 C577 8. Hursainara Khan IV) Star of thar 1980) 1 SCC 9.105: 19RD SCC Cn) 45,1979 LI 1045 Sec isthe observations of the Supreme Cort in Meda Hy State of Maharastra, 1978) 3 SCC S44, $87. 178 SCC C1 468,481 Liem 9, See Suk Das v. Uni Ferrin, uf Arunachal Pradesh, 49862 SCC 401: L986 SCC (Cr) 166; 1986 (1) Seale 08 10, See observations im Kehr inchs State Deli ( 1988) 3 SCC 4, 1, Kali Ram. State of H P 11978) 2 SCC 408 1973 SCC \Cr 108% 1089-1974 Crt as- Lectures on Criminal Procedure tect hopin with and be threnghout governed by «hi presumption Howes then oterved that the cherished principe i polars thread of proof beyond reasonable dit which runs thas ie Sane sur law should ino he stroiched morbidly to embace every Renee hesuancy and degree of doubt! 6 Rights of accused persons at the trial A fair anal implies that it should he fair hath 1 the prosecution as well a the accused person. Therefore the following righ in favour af the aveused have been recognised by the Code with a view to make the tal far 1 the accured person’ 0) Right to know of the accusation.—In order W enable the accused to maks preparations for his defence, itis essential that he be infocmed ff the accusations against him, The Code therefore provides in unc bigvous terms that when an accused person is brought helore the cot for wal the particulars of the offence of which he Is accused thal! be stated to hum. (Ss. 228, 240, 246, 251], In case of serious offences, the court is required to frame in writing a formal charge and then to read and explain the charge 10 the accused person. {sce Ss. 228, 240, 246] Detailed provisions have been made in the Code in Sections 211-226 regarding the form of charge and joinder of charges. (8) Right of accused 10 be tried in his presence.—The personal Presence of the accused throughout his trial would enable hint We under stand properly the prosecution case as itis unfolded in the cour. A trial and 2 decision behind the back of the accused person is not contemplated by the Code, though no specific provision to that effect is found therein ‘The requirement of the presence of the accused during his tral can be !mpited from the provisions which allow the court to dispense with the Personal attendance of the accused under certain circumstances, {see Ss. 205. 2 Section 317 however makes an exception to the above rule and empowers the count 10 dispense with the personal attendance of the ‘ccused person at his wrial under certain circumstances. At any stage of ‘a inquiry or trial. if the court is satisfied that the personal atendance of the accused before it is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in court, the court may. f the accused 1s represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance 20d proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any 12. Talab Haj Hussain v. Madhular Purushonam Mondkar, AIR 1988 SC 376: 1958 Cn L701. 706 1 Seoan Sahabrao Bobadev. State of Maharashra, (1973) 2 SCC 193: 1973 SCC (Cx) 1033-1039: 1973 Cm LI 1783. But se ths cae explained nila mI* Principal eae oF Tri B ciseqen sag of the pocetns ct the pascal ene So oiler fb en in rs of cued re ay She Secs 23 lnc nih Corea he wa Sha beiaken in she presence of the aecmed , when HP Prion ‘Mendance ts dispensed with in the presence of his pleader. 1S. Hover i shuld ma be undestodat stove rue apiale even where the accused by his own conduct makes recording of evidence inh preencean impo Otere 4 would mot OY edn Wetted Sa Tara brns ean ane ofa tal athe eRe of ie tee Sachs ponton cam ar be captered to be comsona whe tats poets untnging te Cae™ e Furor, whenever ay eves given na guage no ners ty the suse, ad ee presen nc in pera, aa be erp open co's guage enced by hm 5 791 fan accused person mye of neon mind and thus unable 0 undead the preceding n such acne speci provisions have Beet Imad n Stony 998309 to deal wih acs sation fn accused person, though nt of ncnd mind, may be deaf and du: may bea Yoregner nt kaowing the guage of te cou a 0 imerpret i avalale and if such acwed able 0 onderstand or amor be made to understand the proseodings there may be a eal Sica, tn such cae has been proved ht he court may proceed Sf he ingury’ or a. and inthe cane of ou oer than 2 High Court it such proceedings res in a eosin the proceedings shal fe forwarded ithe High Coun with a ep of he creumetances of he Chae andthe High Cour shall pss theron sigh order a thnks {S. 318), (a) Righ to cross-examine prosection winesses.—I's.a impor sight forth purpoves of tence, Acmina il which denies the accused non the gh fo ros-examine poset wiesis i based on weak foundation, and cannot be considered as a fair trial.'* (e) Right 10 produce evidence n defence —Though the burden of proving the uit entirely onthe prosecution and though the law does ver require the accused to lead evidence to prove his tmocence yet a riminal alin which the accused isnot pemited to give evidence 10 ‘Gisprove the prosecution case cannot be considered as just and fair. The refusal without any legal justification by a magistrate to issue process t0 Ta Sure v Anan Singh, 1972Cn LI 1327, 1332(Cal HC. 1S See Suton Stnve of Ratha, A, 1967 Raj 267, 268: 1967 Cr LI 1702.tas Lectures on Criminal Procedure (heer the wrtmesses mamed by the accused person has heen Held enongh to witate te wal” (P Right 10 have reasoned decisions —COn the plainest requirement ‘of justice and fait Wal the least that is expected of the tral court 1s 4 nou. comder and discuss however briefly the evidence of vatious ‘unesscs as well asthe arguments addressed at the har.” This require ‘pent alo appealable to the decisions of the appelate Cours £9 Doctrine of “autrefois acquit” and "“auirefois convict” —Assors- ung to this doctrine, if a person is tried and acquitted or. convicted of an “iene be cannot be tried again for the same offence or on the same Tie oe any avher offence. This doetrine has been substantially sacorpor ated in Amicle 2042) of the Constitution ad is also embodied in Sectce 37 af the Code. The second of subsequent rial im vilation of the above Soctnine would! mean” unjust harassment of the accused person. and. can considered as anything but fair and has been prohibited both by the ade and the Constitution. The doctrine would be discussed in detail in 2 subsequent lecture, 7. -Expeditious trial In every inquity or tial the proceedings shall be held as expeditious!y 2s possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begus. tho same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses n attendance have been examined unless the court finds the adjournment ni the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be evorded. 1S. 309(1)] 4 cerminal trial which drags on for unreasonabl: long time is not a tain inl. This is particularly so in a case where the accused 1s not released on bail during the pendency of the trial and the tial is inordinately deiaved Speedy trial is an essential ingredient of “reasonable, tair and just procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and itis the constitutional obligation Of the State to devise such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the accused.” The Courts have, however, not been consistent in quashing Te Tahech Muhammad v. State of Hsderabad. AIR 1984 SC $1. 1984 Cn L) 338, 38. nad Winn! Mathams . State of WB..AIR 1988 SC4SS: 1984 Cn L}T16L.L164anc Nunwona daisy Emperor, ILR (1907) 31 Mad 131, Also see observations in 1 seNtnanan Pilla: «State. 1982 Cri LI 436 (Ker HC! Sreedhar Pillay \ J fvander 1992 Cr LS 3433 (Ker HC). > Afutinan Sinzhs State of Panjab. 1995 SCC (Cr) 296 humane: Pulibhoi Patni. State of Gujara. 1998 SCC (Cn 199s sec 1c ‘escmare Khatoon (IV) v. State of Bihar, (1980) | SCC 9% 107 1980 SCC Cr» 40. ESCH E0685. Guin: National Grindlays Bank Li’ 198691 SCC O84 1986 EON ain 1986 SC 289: Sheela Barte ¥- Union a iia, 1988) 8 SCC 63220 See Mibr a Princ Feanare of Fr Trial ‘of sped wa. als on the ground alleging dent All pervasive concept of fale tral The woe ol fat ia has pesmeated ever Criminal Drocedre Code This br what i should fe. The a ‘Shine Cove beng to provide for fai al dhe amination fasts ts ft natal that all the provisions of the Code as tire goal The prevent Lecture has dealt with only the prineps Grr inal leaving ther connected. and ancillary raters lectures. This may tot be overlooked wich st la i a Ne = ‘oman Rights paruclaly i elmo vo the rights coenerid wh SSEPOR hy nce ne hang per of ctl SOS et arate ter Sree t= Reese sme fn che and Wee lel iw mies = Toei wt a) adver stm, 0) rewenguon of ow or he problems of wena poner ate coe hd = Tes cone fore the Supreme Co 3 how ey WE Pe! Coan by phy seen of orders 9 Hassan Khem Bas Goan, sce st T9eo Soc cn) 23.1979 Cn LI 10396 BoMToursce ent 33: (1980) 1 SCC 9D 1980 SCC Cad: 19 SE Jono See cc 1999 Co Ly 1085, 1980) SCC 18 180 Sp ata gn 1 SCC NNS 1980 SCC (Ci 57.1909 Ca LI OBE 46 fot he development ofthe gh 10 spect al hough eee teediow High Cours and the Supreme Cou Pend ot he aernaies 1 the avesary system of cma Torin ret gmp fecal a em revsing Caine cama ial before 8 nyaya panchayat or panchayat 2 (undress 3 tat cena al? SHpng the vw at woe 3 ta 62180 a Tre enalate the ioe of lawyers in afording ta ial 8 Crnealy examine. Upendea Bast “Rich nes Ii ‘Manarashira + Char Lal (3983) 1LL Tone SECC 8521986 Cr LI 1736 and Raghu Sens» Sate of Bs SCC a1 tome SCC Co) 811 19KT CHL IS a cosh Sete nf WB, 19Ce LI 26\Cal HC) Kalb Se Mi Nt CLT 7S8 PRM HC) NV Roshan Reds. lope Toone STATA HCY © She Kumar » Ste of P19 CALI2597 seen Marek Ve. Siteof Rapin. 179 Supp SCC 21 "Tw acute pum SSPE ol Gress Gonderwres om Crominat Process ME Teme ef i et ad te of De KN. Chandasthari Pilla “Right te Speedy Tal in Indy =A ow acl ented “Dees in the emintaion of Comet duane 92) 2 SCC oa) 8 0 oy Do you think i 2 pragmanc suggesion? Exp . cower the servations in Kehr Sung» State (Dein; Aden (198891 SCC on venue of inal and openness of Wi ® Coacaly examine the rk of prosecutor ie criminal tl athe ih ofthe ion tt Sheonandan Pawan ¥. State of Bier 198°) 1a + Consider Madd Da! ¥- Unio of ind. (198) 9 SC 148 Coca examine he seed forthe Cours writing ressoned pigments 8 one scuss biefly the pci feamres ofa fair criminal i 2 What ar the speci! rights ofan accused person in criminal tal? What ae the rowsions made isthe Code to ensre the indcpendeace,mpa. ‘ati and competence of the criminal cours? of rim respect « of oe ment fi This c 2 pon tag~-$ SE: i. 10 Types of Trials : Some Common Features The Cove provides different types of criminal trials for different Rene ‘(criminal cases. the more elaborate wial procedares being. Prowse = Feapeet of serious types of offences. simple and less elaborate case of offences of lesser gravity and eompletty and sail sempler = more abridged procedures for pety criminal cases. Such Gieremmal ‘weatment of tmal procedures becomes inevitable ifthe avaslable Tee = Terowrees are fo Be utised equitably todo jatar stall ed We have already seen how the Code has clasifie the crimmal cases ime “warrant cases” and “summons cases" depending upon the —-=S oT the offences 10 whict They relate. A "warrant case" is one wach relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment. for hfe. oc umpnsoe- ‘meat for aterm exceeding (wo Years: and a "summons case is One TE 1a an offence which is not so severely punishable as in a warram csc ‘This classification of criminal cases has been made the bass for Akane 2 primary decision as to the type of tial procedure 10 be adopeed = respect.of any criminal. case. In fact the Code has devised four rypes of tal procedures—(1) trial before a court of session, (2) risl of warrant ‘cases by magistrates. (3) tral of summons eases by masses. and ‘summary tals. Generally speaking the first two types of tals have Deon ‘opted in warrant cases and the remaining two have been uscd for summons cases. This means that the Code has considered i expedient 2 sub-divide the warrant Cases into two categories and the summons cases inuo 1wo calegones for the purposes of devising suitable wal procedures. e e Ik may however be noted that the allocation of particular {ype of Tal m e « « « « respect of particular category of criminal cases has not been unduly nigid. ‘As will be seen later, summary trial has been adopted in respect of Sane ecified warrant cases with a View (0 alain funcyomal efiaeacy without risking the interests of justice. ‘The four modes of trial would be discussed Jaser im two separate + lectures. It may however be convenient to discuss at ome-place some of ‘their common features. and that is being attempted in this lecture. Some on Wo these ctferen pal procedures red in (wo other lectures later . « < « a 1 See Lecture 1192 Lacures an Criminal Procedure eer 1 Language of courts ‘Sectim 272 etmpowers the Slate Government 0 determine what sll iow the purges of the Code, the Uanguage of eae! «rt within the ‘hey than the High Court However, where the language used Py J wines or the accused person is diffecent trom the cout language Special prowisonm.bave Been made in Sections. 277 and 281 for the Trondip of the evidence of such a witness and for the recording of the Sitcrncht of such an accused person ‘All proceedings in the Supreme Cour and in-every High Coust are tebe in Enplish suyect to such changes as would he made regarding the sé! any. ofher language {n such proceedings in accotdance wih the pros som of Anche 448 of the Consiution 2. Power of court to summon any material witnesses oF to examine ‘persons prevent ‘Apart fom the witnesses being summoned on the request of the Prosceution or the defence. the court of jis own can examine any Person 3s 3 court witness. Acsording to Secon 311. any court may. at any stage of 5) mguity oF Wial summon any person as a witness, oF exAMINE amy person in allendaace, though not summoned as 4 wiiness ot recall and Fe-examine any person who has been already examined Further the section requires the coun to. summon and examine. of 16 recall aad re-examine any such person if his evidence appears 10 it © be essential fgg tne ust decision ofthe case The discretion of the court in this regan ‘vide. but it has to be exercised judiciously* Both the tnal coer, ani the Sessions Court can summon witnesses® under this provision oven af the stage of examination of the first-prosecution witness”. A witness examined by the court under Section 311 as a coun-witness can be cons-examined by both the prosecution and the defence” The Supreme Cour has ruled that a witness cannot be tendered for cross-examination alone.’ Section 311 is not limited only for the benefit ot the accused. and i will aot be an impeoper exercise of the powers of the Court to summon 3 Sez Babu Sigh State Rojasthan. 1986 Cn LI 1374 (Ray HC 4 See the observations ofthe Supreme Coun in Kachunondan\ Sate of UP Sec 181974 SCC (CH 385.388: 1974 Cn LJ 488. 4. See Modi Shami Saat. Union of India 1 Supp (1) SCC 271-1991 SOC Ce 1205-1991 CLS 1521 (SC Ashod Kumar v Star of Roshan, 1998 Ce LI 1281 Re HC 4 Sex Jarail Singh Sea of Punjab. \990 Co L 2310 (P&H HC TSE Ken! Gupta» Staue of HP. 1991.Gp LI 400 HP HC & Kongarnam \Surga, AIR 1954 M 1088 CH LI 128 Bryne 9, Pa Motard All 147. 19 ; Mohendro Nath Dest Gupte \. Enncron 1UR (1982) 29 C= 58 Chontamam Singh v. Emperor. WLR 1907) 38 Cal 4. Sutdmant Singh ¥. State of Panjab. (1998) 3 SCC 367 > aoe RedeTypes of Trials Some Common Features 153 dence supports the case a witness under the section merely because the far the prosecution and mot that of the accused Bes Power of court to order payment of expenses of complainants 2nd wines Generally the Slate Government makes rules expenses of the complainants and the witnesses atending the cc {he purposes of inquiry or thas, If such niles are not in existen they do exist subject io such rules, any criminal court may order pay fon the part of the Govemment. of the reasonable expenses of ‘complainant or witgess atendiag fr the purposes of any inquiry Ort the pay 4 Cofimissions for the examination of witnesses The general rule is thatthe evidence of one pac should not be {eceived against another pay without the laler having an opportunity ot testing truthfulness by cros-examinason." Subject 1 certain safe {uards. commissions forthe examination of witnesses ae iasued ad they may be considered as exceptions (othe general rol. “Whenever inthe course of any ingity oF wal it appears vo the cour that the examination of a witness is necessary forthe ends of jusie. ar tat the allendance of such a witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense” of inconvenience which, under the ci: ‘umstances of the case, would be unreasonable, the couft may dispense with such attendace and may sue a commission forthe examination Of the witness. (S. 284(1)} The ciscrtion in issuing a commission is a judicial one and sho not!be lightly or arbitrary exercised.” While exercising the judicial iscretion inthis matter i should be bome in mind that if the evi against the accused is recorded in fis presence and in open cour. he an opportunity to lst by cross-examination. and the court is enabled to dee the wntnesses and observe their demeanour. When the examination of the President or Vice-President of India the Governor of a Stte as 4 witness is necessary for the ends of justice a commission. shall be issued for the examination of such a wiiness [Proviso to S. 2841)] When issuing a commission for the examination of a witness for the prosecution. the court may direct that a reasonable amount to mect th expenses of the accused. including the pleader’s ees, be paid by prosecution. {S. 284(2)) 10. Avr Singhs, Harel Singh. 1998 Ca LI 118i HPC) 11. Seman Sane of Guyot. AIR 196 Gu 120,128: (1961) 2G 7, 12. Dharmanand Ponts. State /'P. AIR 1987 SC S98 1987 Cr LI BSALectures on Criminal Procedure sae we = Lem 1 9 er a Deval pe monde India rn India hut in ay aren Kod. Provisions wave Boon made 10 Sections 286, 248 and 290, The pares wo any rUceeding which a commen i ed may sand any imuerogatnes im ung. which the coun ‘cena we semession may thnk relevant 10 the tue, and N shall De Inchon se oF the officer fo whom the caunmision ' directed to seaming Stes upon such interrogatories. [S287 Any such party as ts referred ig above may appear before di cou be officer by pleader OF 104 sn custody. perom, nd oot une, coss-ekamine and te-c1amunc (2s the Case may be) ihe mad wimess. 1S. 2872) 5. Special rules of evidence The following. special rules of evidence would facilitate proof and ‘duce the time and expenditure in the production of evidence Denontion of medical witness —The depontion ofa evil surgeon ether medical witness, taken and aticited by a magivrale ihe fxence of the accused. oF taken on cormpesSion Yn the manner mentioned ove: may be. given in evidence in ay inguity or inal akbough the axponent i not called as a witnefs. [5.29111], Secor, summon and examine Sy-such deponent a5 w the subject yer: ot his deposition. [S. 291,211 J ay however be noted that the above prowsion is aplicable only EXPEM evidence given by a medical wuiness a5 such and does nck pls to the evidence relating to facis tendered by a person who ales pens to be 2 medical man? 2 Enadence of officers of the Mint —Apy document purporting 10 be Por: under the hand of any Specified gazened officer of the Mint or % 13s Secunty Press ‘inclading the office ofthe Controller of Stamps Stationery) upon an: submitted to him for ‘mmation and report in the course of any proceeding under the Code ‘may De used as evidence in any inquiry or inal, alhough such officer ix 2x called as a witness {S. 292(1)}. The court may..in.its_discastion, ons Khan. Emperor. AIR 940 Cut’ 209.211 -42.C11 13 443 ter of thingTorq Tat Sone Cae Pours summon any ch oct as othe subject mater of his rept: ur sch : oe ain ee cso 8283.35 ‘Shan fe ence wae person of MBB dita cao ach be rp oud nln Seagal atr tang aoa aceon declosure of certain matters are considered Mecessary, as otherwise i igh renin ane ses eger a Some eum ad De Government scientitic expert upon any matter of thing duly submitted ish for examination angus abd Topew in BE couse any Frocending under the Code, may BE wsed evidence fn any ns) or_tmal |S. 293(1)]. But the court may in its discretion SR and xamin any such expert i sbjctmaner 9 spo 8.3990 however if such expert is unable to attend personally, he may. in the absence of any expe dont apeat Peony Sefeany respon sible officer working with him to attend the [[S. 293(3)}. The above provisions apps tothe foloning Govewmest 6 (2) any Chemical Examiner or Assam Chemical Examiner © Goverment (b) the Chet Inspector of Explosives (6) the Distr ofthe Fingerprint Bureau: (2) the Director, HTheine Ist, Bombay ) the Dirsetor. Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Cent Forensic Science Laboratory oF a State Forensic Science Labot- (P the Serologist to the Govemment. [S. 293(4)} Though the report as such is admissible in evidence. its probative value depends upon several circumstances, such as the data available, the ‘method of analysis, the fulness of the conclusion, and speaking. generally, the vulnerability 10 which the expert's premise is subject > 14. 28th Repon ofthe Law Commission of India on “Evidence of Officers about amps: curency noes et” (1963), pL. para Ip. 3-para 6 para 13 +See also dist 2. para a Report 15. Enperar Happ, AIR 1933 AU837.840 ; Probl Babi Noval v State of Bemba, ‘AIR 1956 SC'51 1986 Cn Li 147,199: Din Dova v Sure, ATR 1956-All 920,993 1956 Cu LI 1031: Sate v. Sahar Ramm. AIR 1958 All 34.35" 1988 Cis LIB See ano Taira Kau v. State, AIR 19S4 SC |” 1984 Co LI 225 ; Site ¥. Ramsinghe ATR. 163 om 8.701963) 1 CnL1 $6 Sut of Grav asenmal 1969) Cn Ld $33 Guy HC) HP Admn. vm Prabal} 92) SCC 249" 1972 SCC (Ch 88, 10% 1972 Cn LI 6a,16 Lacan on Crime Proedere wer 14. No formal prof ef certain document! Where say Sncament 8 fica vere uy cor by ty pany parla every rach cement SRST S'scioded ma he wrth prescribed form. an Um oe ed upon wo edi o deny the periencrt Of cach such Socument Trine eenumeneaa Of wich document now puted ay be ead TOSSA many inqury otal without pool af theMpatre of he SCs to whom 1 purport to be sim. The our hoeyer may. 49 [TSrcton vogue the agate tobe prove. (5.293) SApidors in proof of certain mazers (a) ABidavit im pro of onauct pub rerant.-Where application i ade 1 2°) wrike cours of any mguity OF Wal and allegations are made ‘= opectng any pubic servants, the applicant may with the permission of {he tour give evdence of the facts lege inthe aplication by {S. 295]. Z () Evsdence of formal character on affidavit ~The evidenes 8 person whose evidence is ofa formal character may be given by a ea may, subject 0 al jst exceptions be Ted in evidence i any airy onal, The court shall onthe application of any pary. OC may {Tscteion summon and examine any soch person af ie faci contained in the affidavit. [S. 296] - _ ‘Section 297 mentions as to what the affidavits should confine to, and che authonties before whom they-may be sworn. & Proof of previous conviction or acquital —Proof of previous sanvction may become important when the question of awarding co sad punshmment arses as in cases under Section 75 of the IPC In aay inguity of tral, a previous conviction or acqutal may De proved in addition to any other mode provided by any other law — By a duly cerfied copy of the sentence or ordet pasted by the eure in which such conviction oF acquittal was held = ot (b) in case of a conviation, either by a ceruficate issued by the offices in charge of a jail in which the punishment was undercone. ot by production of the warrant of commitment under which the punishment was suffered : ‘ogether with i each of such cases, evidence as 10 the identity of the accused person with the person 50. convicted or acquitted. [S. 298) + Record of evidence in the absence of the accused —Sectio provides 180 © {to the normal rule contained in Secon 2» that iT evidence 1s to be taken. in the presence of the accused person. These exceptions are as follows a) If it is proved that an accused person has asconded, and that there is no immediate prospect of arresung him. the court comDyes ef Mats Some Conmman Peacures 1s event YAN perm he oftence gomplained of may. The wtinenscs proxhed on Behalf of the At ihe sepestons. Any such deposit the atest af uch person, be piven evidence agai ooh ONS ngury AMR al foe ther oence wath which ‘hangs the dopuinent fs dead oe ineapable of giving evidenc Scant Ke fount Ie presence caapot he procured. withow on amyoun of delays eayeae ot yncoRventence which, under th Sircumatanges he cave Mull Be ueasonable.[S, 2091 punishable with death or i sc foe bie has een soaked! By some UAknOWN Pe High Court ov the Sessions Judge may diet that straie of the fest clase may hold an_engairy and ex any witnesses Who. can give. g¥MenGE concerMNg the o! Any depvsition so fake hay Be given em evidence again ferson who is subsequentiy aggusgd of the offence, if the dep fen is dead oe tavapalle oF giving evidence or Beyond the lis of linha. (S283) & Couet’s power to have focal inspection For the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence given at any ro tMal, the consernad AEC OF MagKstrate May. al any Slaze 0 inguiry o€ tal © to the partes, visit and inspect which an 0 cod to have Been committed. oF any the nunca necessary 10 View, He shall then ics Ggnecessary delay rovers a memorandum of any relevant fact obse ce. (§310:1)] Such memorandum shall form part of the case may, on request. obiain a copy s pemmated by the above provision 1s los mmgniry, Wracthor the judze or magistrate sho visit and inspect the place at a particular sia ebviously depends on the tacts and exrcumstances im each ease.!* 7. Attendance of persons confined in prisons before criminal courts Sections 267-271. which are on the same lines as the provisions criminal courts Whenever the attendance of a prisoner for answenng to a charge an offence, or for examining him as witness ts necessary in any inguity 6, Aid Karon «Save Meharastra. 1974 C LSiS 51S Bom HO)wo Shrmlarly Sectwom 2 perma sta Ho Carrying tat the order Of a ‘ erin contingencies like sickneds o ce 270 deects the officer in-charge of a prcen Ww carry ut the bp the court under Section 267 and prescribes the manner mm 271 emprrwers the cimit {o sssue com S. Court's power and duty to examine the accused person = every engairy or tnal. for the purpore of enabliny the accused . © explain any cxcumsiances appeaning inthe evidence against smav a any stage put such question 1o him as the court considers shall. after the witnesses for the prosecution have been exa. smned and before he 1s called on for his defence. question him generally on the case ; however, in summons case where the court has di ttendance of the ac und, H may 6E Tijone wiih is exeminaion-under is clause (6). fS. 3131)] = warrant casch. howeyet ev acd with the examination if the attendance of Counsel is he accused will not be dispensed when he 1s examined = the accuses render {0 punishment by refusing 10 qeesuons, oF by giving false answer to them. The answers given ¢ accused may be taken inio consideration in such inquiry or trial, Pet m evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial 2% other offence which such answers may tend to show he has ¥ [S. 313 & (4 The above provision 1s not intended to enable the court 10 cross accused for the purpose of trapping him or beguiling hin. Sex Una K Pillat¥. Raj K. Srinivas (1993) 3 SCC 208, (hide ‘See Sahu Bhushan Dos Gupta v Siate of WB AIR 1968 SC 381: 1961Cn LJ 654 57 for amtyes ofthe sexton. Sec also AK. Aliv, Mammuary, 1989 Cit 1820 (hot BC Kannial Stomabihes Thaler ¥ Site of Gayarat. 1990 Cri L) 2506 (Guy HC) Keiethan ¥ Stan of MP .1980Cn LI 1119 (MP HC) on el Nem ype af Trials Some Common Features se, nan advsion wt fat wb the promecuom has Fite 6A rye wena yest oF the aetvon 1440 afford the acewned 6 fia proper opporinity st explaining the creamatances hi APP spats foe and Uh ust be fait and ia which a on may beable 1 appreciate in understand “The Supweme Court has held that Af an axcused 18 Bikes questions oft h oe ihe crime st may prejitice bam ath thay vitae the al ‘Statements recone contrary tothe acvepted question-ansswer method ‘or exarmmation where m0 question enabling accused 10 explain te ot ‘umstances appearing against hum are nt, instances of proper esaminatien ‘oF aceuned under Section 3132" No accused can be comics) #60 because he aumtted guilt despite is non-implication he offense Py all etnesses since the statement under Section 313 does pot cams Seiden very emer or omission in complying with Section 313 does 60% necessarily witite the tal. The question whether the trial has Deen »iated depends in each case upon the degree of error and upon whether prcjudice hhas been or is Tikely to have been caused to the accused "The examination of the accused being of great importance. all care is taken to"make the record of such examination both accurate and authentic () Whenever the accused is examined by a Metropolitan Magis trate. the magistrate shall make a memorandum of the substance of the ‘examination of the accused in the language of the court and such memorandum shall be signed by the magistrate and shall form part of the record. [S. 281(1)] fi) Whenever the accused is examined by any other magistrate, oF by a Court of Sessions, the whole of such examination, including every {question put 10 him and every answer given by him is to be recorded tn 19 P Murugan » Eihiajammat. 1973 Ca} 1286, 1257 Mad HC) 20. Ait Kumar». State of Bihar, (1972) 2 SCC 481 : 1972 SOC (Ch) 748. 750 5 1972En YSIS Aimer Soigh Soe of Punab, AIR 1983 SC-76_ 1983 Cx LI S21, 323 ‘Modan lvan . State of Gujarat 1971) SSC 297 = 1971 SCC (Ca) S87, S92" 1971 Gas 1310. Tara Sigh State, AIR 1981 SC 441: 1981 Ca LS L49L, 1495. Suresh ‘Chontra Ba. State uf Bidar 198 SCC (Ca) 6, 21, See Aravind Balashanker Jus v. State of Gujarat, 191 Co LI 2241 (Guy HC: State Spar, 191 Ci Ld 2612 (Kant HC): Kabul alias Khadr «Sate of Repesthan 992 Ca Ld 1491 (Raj HCr, Site of Maharashra¥ Sabhder Singh, 1992(3) SCC 700. 122 See Site v Sheith Khadher Sheith Baden, 1991 Cx LI 3208 (Kani HC). 35. Bible; Bhushan Das Gupta ¥.State of WB. ATR 1969 SC 381 1909 Cr L658 ‘Sh Sahebran Bobade Sate of Matuarasnca. (1973) 2 SCC 793-1973 SCC Ca} TOS3 10461978 CL) 1783 Magn Jinn © Ske of Gayot. 1971) 3 SCC 297 ant sce ven $87,592 1971 CoE 13h " sfm gon re gases HET EY 0 ectre Cris! Prpredire ; fu Oy the page ot maginese Wimsel on whate he 1 unable mire tt pote or ctr cope, under he recta and Sac ty se fcr oft een, The tour i be the language tmiwtrch te sone tr enamined and ha nt practicable i be tm the language of the court. The record shall then be shawn tea 1 the accuse. and i he has any difficulty in understanding the language ‘which wis write, it shall be interpreted to him ins lnuage eh be understands. and he shall be at liberty to explain of add the answers ‘Thereafter the record shall be signed by the accused and hy the magnate ce the jadge. who shall certify under his own hand thatthe = samination was taken this presence and hearing and thatthe record contains ful ant crue account of the statement made by the accused. (S.241(2), (3) wach ui) Every High Court may by general rule. prescribe the manner in hich te examination ofthe accused shall he taken down in before i. and the examination shall be taken down in accordance with soc rue. (S. 283) ©) None of the above rules shall apply to the examination of an accused person in the course of a summary tal. [S. 261(6)] Considering © nature of the offences in such summary trials and the objectives of ‘ach tna. this does not appear to be unreasonable Slexibi 9. Accused person to be competent witness Ain accused person can be a competent witness for the dstence and may give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges. made against him o¢ any co-accused at the same tral. However, he shall nor be called as witness except on his own request in writing. Secondly. his tall 0 ese evidence shall not be made the subject of any comment by an} ot he Parties or the court or give rise to any presumption against himscif or any co-accused at the same trial (S. 315(1)] ‘An accused person who volunteers to he a witness in defence. is in the same position as an ordinary witness." and is therefore sybjeet to punishment than tha pe SAPNA IN Gitte ore cthernise of such amature that th Baap precede (covsainad in Sections 340-343) 1s ove appropri. ‘S coert ugh moe swsad under this section? Tre wed ac as oon and sentence passed under Section 344 has soee spoil nave appedlable under Sectcn 351 witha view to guard set arbitrary action FY the court Cerauix caves 0) contempy of court —When any such offenc descnted ip Soxuoe 175, Section So FAC is commited nthe view or presence of ans ‘Revenue Court the court may cause the offender to be sf casa amv may take cognizance of the offence Before the wg of the ve gay, The cout may then. aller giving he aR PRSSase opportunity of showing cause as 06 why he shoal Se be punished summa, sentence the ailender to fine aot excessng So humo rapecs =~ in default of payment of Fine, to simple imprison > HC S Sask Oe Te Se Dew Pras See MP. 1992 Co LS 1B Seatamepon poe pee ss Te set mk Wy inal emus t re 2 docu! 3 egy bound prosuse iy zoey te 8.8) iy pound saith aS. 17 sce imateospobis rvan en ely equ 0 te (5) cna eset tere ma pu rant mg ay tp aLectures on Cruminal Prowedure Weer tor a teem which may extend 10 one ion, unless such i wre pant [8.3481 wy every such cage the court shall record the Facts constituting the sve the statement (AF any} made by the afendy and ve ding arch fone [S. 452) Ifthe offence is under Section 27% i the ID the nu shal also show the nature and stage of the judicial pris ceding im shici the court interrupted or insulted was sittin pon or insul, IS. 345(3)) r under Section 345 has been made ape and the nature of the ple under Section the court considers that an offence of the above tive kinds 1. « wer Sections 175, 178, 179, 180, 228) should not be tried. summarily hat it should require a heavier punishment, 1 may follow the procedure 1m Section 346. According 10 this procedure, the court shall record <> constituting the offence and the statement of the accused person, nay then forward the case to a magistrate having jurisdiction w uy ence, and may require security to be given for the appearance of person before such magistrate. The magistrate may then deal with ssc as if it were instituted on a police report nen any court has under Section 345 adjudged an offender to ‘ment. or has under Section 346 forwarded him lo a magistrate for fa) Tor refusing or omitting 19 do anything which he was lawfully ‘© do or for any intentional insult or interruption. the court may the offender or remit the punishment on his submission to the or requisition of ‘such court or on apology being made to its stacuon. [S. 348] crson refusing to answer or to produce document—If any => £TUSes to answer such. questions as are put to him, or if a person =< -p0n 10 produce a document or thing before produce such document criminal court refuses or thing in his possession or power, ‘conduct amounting to contempt of our ai eae ahaa > (6) President of India or a Governor of 3 State as witness im s ceumns! > 1c) Asis pon a a wine > a) Evidence of Otc of Min te) rot of previous conviction acquit () Laval nspastion by 3 judge 2 mopsrale > () Oral and Writen arguments, { {h) Provsons for having expeditions ta > i rover dpa , ) )Wu Charge A. ‘charge” simply means an accusation, For the prpenes of tal peccetates winks the Cove it signifies formal accusation agiat a person that he commited an wlfence The Cade he bat define "charge": it amly says that “charge” cludes any bead of carp Ta all tials under the Code the accused 1s 10 he inforined of ons precisely and clearly formulated 9m wu ‘quired that the and type of Ki may also be noted that whatever may be the natur tal. iL 1s always for the court to frame a charge against the accu framing the charge in a case instituted upon a police 1=por the required at the time of framing of the charge to contine its attention to documents referred to under Section 1732 In any trial of a warrant case. whether itis before 4 coutt of sessior in writing is essential cor whether itis by a magistrate, a formal char while in a trial of a summons case or in a summary ial, itis enough if instead of a formal charge. the substance of the accusation is stated lo the accused. 1. Form and content of charge Sections 211-214 deal with what the charge should contain. According to these provisions 1) Every charge shall state the offen charged. [8. 211(1)] (2) If the law gives the be described in the cha if Abi accused of “Tur with which the accused is offence any specitic name, the offence may by that name only. [S, 211(2)} For instance or ‘extortion’, the charge may state that extortion’ without relerence 10 the definition of \ commuted ‘murder ~~ (3) If the jaw does not give the offence any specitic name, so much 10 give the accused of the definition of the ottence must he stated nouce of the mauer with which he is charged. [S. 211( 4) For instance, 4.43 charged under Secuon 184, IPC with intentionally obstructing a sale OF property vitered for sale by the lawful authority af « public servant. The charge should be couched in those words 1 S.2tby 2 See State of Sonim and Kashmir v Sudarshan Chathar, 1998 SCC (Ce 64, | 169)Lectures om Cramanal Pr wedure (heer MANNS! wehICH the oftenee ty sald rete! vball be menuaned.n the charge 18 ued Tine charge shall contain such particulas ay to time and place ed alten amt the person (iP any) against wham, de the . env) an respect of WH, HE Was Committed. ay are Feasomably fw give the acused notice af the matter with whieh be te SMA However when the accused is charged. with wach Of UNE OF dishonest misappropriation of money oF vale property, it shall be sufficient specity the gross sum ksvnite the movable property, an respect of which the offence govt 9 have been ynmitted. and the dates between which the 1 alleged! to have been committed, without specifying particu: + oe exact dates [S. 2122)]. The charge so tramed shall be bea charge of one offence within the meaning of Section vided that the time included between the first and last of such ates shall not exceed one year. [S. 3122)] W the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence © by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment punishment of a difterent kind, for a subsequent offence. and it od! to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting ~ pomishment which the court may think fit to award for the subsequent once. the fact, date and place oF the previous conviction shall be stated he charge. and if such statement has heen omitted. the court may add at any time before sentence is passed. [S.211(7)} When the nature of the cave is such that the particulars mentioned above si sub-paragraphs do not give the he matter wath which he is charged, the cha used sufficient nouce shall also contain such ar of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed as © wutficremt for that purpose. [S. 213] The fact that the char is made iy equivalent to a statement that gal condition required by law to constitute the offence charged led in the particular case. [S. 211(5)] Y) The change shall be wrtten in the language af the Cour. {S. 211(6)] 1 Tn every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed to have beet used in the sense attached to them respectively by the law under which such offence is puntshable. [S. 214] The forms in which the charges may be framed are set forth in Form *2 of the Sevond Schedule appended to the Code, and the same may be used with such var as the circumstances of each case may require.* wee2 Ameration of charge and the procedure therwatter Nrroedhing us Socton 21641) any eur may altar on ad wy atte 4 an ume betone padgroeet is promanumced ? Marware, te cut dent uct me nhl amy charge Khe prec othe meson er The following proveduce is 40 be follsmred after the aerane asses of the charge i) Every sacl alteration oF adi shall te ena and export he accused [S216] Tyr ame change an the charge sah shat preaching mee ‘woth ihe teal is mes ikely 10 prejudice any party an the conde wae uit may. alter such change has been made. proeee ™ We She wat an if the altered o adkied charge had been the original charts Se] 5S) Ir une change 1s such that proceeding immediately sath ts! ny party as aforesaid, the conart ray ever de 5 kety to preyud 4 apex inal_or adjourn the thal for such time as may be meceese? wr ~. (S$ 2les “dy Tr the offence stated in the altered or added change vs ane fo" Oh 3 prosecution of which previous sanction is necessary, the case shall tet PE FRx ccicd with unul such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has hess) ~. Teeat abusing’ for « prosecution on the same {acts as theme om we the changed charge ts founded. [S, 216451) ~ SS) Whenever a charge 1s allered after the commencement of the ‘cal « every party shall he allowed— vo nevall or fesummon, and etamine with reference wo Hc oe ‘Change in the charge any witness who may have been examined * the court for reasons to he recorded in wring. considers a. ary desis 0 fecall of re-examine such wiiners for ihe purpones of vexation oF delay 0 for defeaung, tbe ends ea yeance . and {p) also to call any further wntness whom the Court may think wo be material [S. 217] Unless the court passes a specific order and directs a a wt cannot be presumed that 4 new inal has commenced only because a e 2 « « new trial dhecatiog of addition to a charge which has been read over and GSE Sathorn Sune 1979 CALI 258, 62(AP HCY Ram Nagin Bary ¥ Mahavir Kame {98° Cn LJ ¥OKS (Gou HC) . 5. Koma Choma Mia» Suse of Matarashira, N90) 3 SCC Vib 1770S IC) 15.38 TONCNL S10 roa Charo Sa of WAR 9S 2 i ‘m Lecrures on Criminal Procedure 7 explained to the accused has been Made Any sich diteetion piven by oh court has 10 be yudged on the touchstone if prejudice tn the aceaees a the prosecution, a 3 Basic rule regarding charge and its (rial inay_be stated as a basic nile that “for every distinct offen whighgen person is accused there shall he a separate chatge, and ever sarge shall be tied separately” [see S. 21K 1) The byes of ule 1s 10 save the accused from being embarrassed in yy defen distinct offences are lumped together in one chaise. or st separate share re and together.” If the accused is Wo be tned in une Lit por sitieremt charges on different evidence. 1 js not unhikely that the Trught get prejudiced against the accused person? The above basic rule ids 10. avoid such a situation. The sinct observance of the above rule may lead 1 multiplicity of tals \tereore. excepuons in suitable cases have been provided by 8s. 2181 proviso and 219.7220, 221 and 253. A separate charge as required by the basic rules is for every distin offence and not necessarily for “every” or “each’ offence. Two offer are distinct they are non-identical and any way interrelated" A disiinc: offence is distinguished from another offence by (a) difference currence, or (b) victims of crime bet es are covered by differ. in rime andlor place of their Gifferent. or (c} the acts constituting the off sections The exceptions to the basic rule referred to above are as follows 1 Desire of accused—Where the accused person. by an application in_wntng. 50 desired and the magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby. the magistrate may ty together all ‘or any number of the charges framed against such person [see Proviso 10 S. 218(1)]. Si are charged with sep rate 0 the ‘such persons by an application im iting, so desire, and if he is satisfied thal such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby. and it is expedient to do so, try all such offences and persons together. [Proviso to S. 223] The basic rule has been designed for the benetit of the accused persons. and if it works to their detriment they should get relief provided the court also considers it appropriate to give such relief. The exception 6 Ranbir Yadav. State of Bihar, (1995) 4 SCC 392. 7. Afiab Ahmad Khan v. State of Hyderabad. AIR 1954 SC 436° 1954Cn LJ 1155. 1158 8. See Queen Empress v. Jwala Prasad, ILR (1884) 7 All 174. 177 (FB) 9 Banwardal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1620 ° (1963) 2 Cn LI 529. 533.aI eS lings lity of criminal pro ‘thin eur. maybe When a person is agcuaed of more slfences han one same Kun! commuted within the space-of twelve months fren ® the last of such offences, he inty be charged with, and tried rial for any number of them not eseveuing tee 15. 219(1)). 0) We consider to be of the same Kind when they ale punishable wis mount painishnennt unde the same section ol the law |S. 2 Further. the ofiences ot theft covered by Sections 379 and 3H0 sh jgemed 1 be OF the same Ain, and an olence punishable wader stot of Taw shall be deemed to be ai ltence of the same kind vigmpt to commit such an offence when sich an attempt is an of sce Proviso to S. 219(2)) (3) Offences committed in the course of the same transaction. —Ii to form the same tran ‘ane series of acts so connegied ioget ‘more ollences than one are coinmitted by. the same person, he may charged with and ied at one trial for every such offence [S. 220 ‘ For instance A tescues B. a person_in jawful custody, and in so dos table in_ whose custody B was. A rs causes grievous hur iC, a 0 he chaiged with and iied at the. same time for offences under Secti 228 and 333 of the IPC. Here. when offences are committed in the course of the same action, Lis immaterial whether the offences are of the same kind ot ‘whether dieir number exceeds tee or whether the period within wii. they are committed 1s one year or more. What_1s_meunt by “same transaction” has not been defined in ns Code. and a precise uetinition of this expression would always be diflicui Butit is generally thought that where there is proximity of time or plac or thity Of purpose and design or continuity of action an respect ol es of acts. iL may be possible to infer that they- form ark of the san imsaction. It is, however. not necessary that every one ol these clements should co-exist a transaction to be regarded as the same, But if several acts coinmitied by & person how a unity of purpose oF design that wou! bea strong circumstance lo indicate thal these acts form part of the same transaction.” (4) Offences of erimmal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property and their companion offences of falsification of accounts. — When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach © 10. Stare of AP. Cheemaiapan Ganeehsana Rau, AIR 1983 SC 1880 :(1963) 2 Cx L (671,682. Also see Santa Mondalv. Sue. 19A8 Cos LJ 238 Cal HCDoshomest misappropriation of propery as provided . hans tried at cme tal for every such fens xt falling under different sefinition 4 commute an offence falling within 1 of any law by hich offences ate ne accused of them may be charged with and ined atone. oct offences {5 22009)] For instance A wromgtulls woues © A may be separately charged vith, and ined fret Sccuians 382 and 323 of IPC at one trial 4% forming an offence. also constituting different offences hen de rately or in groups —If several acts of sh 4 one would By iself oF themselves constitu: an offence ceosian combined a different offence. the person accused sige4 with, and tied at one inal for the offen combined. and for any offence constituted by one or sone « acts 'S.220(4)]- For instance. A commits robbery on Ban.) donne untanly causes hurt to him A may be separately charged «th sm ‘one tal of offences under Sections 323. 392 and 394 0! IPC what affence has been committed —1f ng cres of acts is of such a mature that itis doubiful which of several ©» the facts which can be proved will constitute. the accused may De changed with having committed all ar any of such of and any such changes may be tried at once (i. ¢. at one trials, oF he be charged in the alternative with having committed any one of th * 1S. 221¢1)]. If in such a case the accused 1s charged with fence. and it appears in evidence that he committed a diferent for which he might have been charged as aforesaid under Seiten he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have mined akhough he was not charged with it (8. 221(2)]. The following ple wil illustrate the implications of this exception {is accused of am act' which may amount to theft, or receiving stolen erty, of criminal breach of trust or cheating” He may he chan receiving stolen property, crimin © may be charged with having cor propery, or criminal breach ned at one ti with al breach of trust and cheating, or mitted theft, or receiving stolen Of trust or cheating. and for all these he may See supra para 15) above. {2 See supea para 32} abovetre te oft ew saa ean Meas yreats may he eet OE MAD ween pret te eae ma) eh A He ema he tts ht ah ove exueyti ts eabe 1crehntcee ak ta tina Breach nN a Aa deter to aes @ RE habater 9H 8 perros Ha be ed nity Tne fottowing Mons ows ox the sae ene ete he the sane asain LS. 22% isnt oF te sare "They py aha be ace pers I Te exjwess st Tansation™ oxcuing. 9 his clause a Voom causes of this excep [he S. 22%), Cy} as well tha csi Sgt 24K) {i para MAY awe ah fe fe own the same meaning. (oy persons accused of a fence Oh aernpl © fund perms aevused oF abetment it uel offence, (8. 228001 ms accuses! of ore than ane offence of the sane Kil rue meaning of Section 219 [.¢ those referred 10 48 Pare Wa) above committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months, 18. 220) Here the number af fence bre tied need fr which several accused persons cout 1 be limited 0 thew.” (ay persons accused of diferent offences commited i th the sane transaction, [S. 2280] The offence of conspiracy and the offences commited by each conspirator in pursuance of the conspiracy are “offences cont ted in the course of the same transaction” within the meaning Ty Sew ¥ Th u 19THC¥ L496, 90 Ker Fei 7 ANTS (1920) T CHL LSS, Als ee Prakash C ToS Cin) 08 Det HCY 14 Amar Singh v Sate ve course of Sa of Ker Achat Rat wer Sie ‘Ale 1984 Pn} 106 (1984) $8 Ox L266, 618 18 Sif Cranage Ra AT 0S 180 (4 aeaus on 16, dado p 081 CHL)EE ~» ~ > > > > ? , , ‘lence. 1S. “ . (Derm accwned of ellen unter Sauiens 4) aes 14.0 th 4 “exun. of which has been ran fe) persons accused of any ullence wrdes Chaps to counlerien cojn and petsums sort Linder the said chapher relating the sw «9 of oF aitempuing wo comms any oe The provisions of the various clauses ang :4pe! a ccommulatvely These clauses need mt be Wate =» wid ad it permssible to combine the proviiina uhm 0 sons “The jot inal of several persons pany by applying ime waive wt pa bby appivine another clause, 18 authorised Timay also be noted that the provinions discussed” 9 ‘bone shall so far as may be, apply 10 all the claves 16 § x above. Whe i 1» clear that Sections 211 wo 222 © ms paid 73, the coun are NOL 19 1gnore shesn but apypy 4 con Section Jom A Section ‘can be applied without detracting from ihe piv 4. Conviction of am offence not charged when such offence included in offence charged (1) Where the accused person 1s charged o several partculass, some. of which when combined ond ‘complese minor offence. he may be convicted of sini the was not charged with such minor offers JS. 22. 1)) Tis is-based on the principe that raver chaigs pivs> Mc Wim auned of all the cueumstances that go to consutuic Ike mimi one wh which he may be convicied 7 Baba Chota» Emperon, AUR AOI HC 13) Kemhotmed © Set of Madras. RIK VW 36 tb AP” Cicemalepan Ganesiwara Ke AIK 1) (86 Semsrachnares. State of Madras. AWK P57 SC 38 18. See Stir of AP v. Checmalapasi Ganeshonara Ko 19 Toad a pp 81.682 an offence comers ine eco ua2 avged with an offence and fats e % fen he aly be anit of ‘tone. although Ihe m4 charped wih ne [83a a pessi “amner oflence” has notion defined 4 the Code Tidependent of the main af i sip ihe wit fesse punishing. The ial an just FS soma offences amd al sty uve tay os ent elements The mir ene mis be conituted BY dome th nis the main oflence 3) When-a person i charge! with an offence, he may be Sieh offence SliRolgh the atempl is tat noe. thatthe above three rules do not author ny minacoffence where the conditions requisite “ings offence. have nt b fon 0 PIS 1 Withdrawal of remaining charges on conviction on one of several charges Wien a charge containing more heads than one i framed agains = pron, aml when a convo been. bal-on oe Go octhe prosecutor may. with the consent oF ange or charges. oF the court of is ow inquiry into, oF tal of. such charge or charges. Sux wave the gffect OF an acquittal on such charge or ch. © coinigtion be set aside, in_which case the said cour, z she inguiry_into, or tial of, the charg withdrawn, (S. 224 6. Applicability of provisions relating to joinder of charges to cases where no charge is framed Inthe wal of « summons gase JL is noL necessary to frame a formal charge against une accused_and itis suiticient if the substance. of The usation is made known io the accused person. However. couris have faken the view that the provisions relating to joinder oF charges and ot are applicable in the trial of a summons case also. Thatges AIK 1985 ANSI. 85 (1988) 46 Cx LI 750; Ramon Ami 58 Ener All Wala AB 1985 Bom 1102 V Thana of Kerala WS CH 15-bm 891 tKee HC). Se of Kerala Rapa Nave 2ST Ker HC Am! Kir Ste of Kagan, 1982 CrsL} 3837 Raj HOY 21, See lnre Upendra Nath BuswasATML3NILR 1 C2193, 702708 Indramares. Ch Bow, AIR 1986 On 171. 2: 1986 Cli LS 1218; A'S dna Sahib dn re, IR Mad 86,87. 55Cn 111 Amolok Mulund. Boperoe. 34 Ca LY 175 AIR Nag 368 A Shamgasonara 8 Sate dpe 1978 Ci Lb 469 (Mad HCA tect of tao H Frame, HF absence A. oF err07 Wy obange reeosined # Fate of ier 40 ie wheter i putice the ext should esd conducted his detence an ewan 1h No finding. sentenge or ones by ' all be deemed valid mensly the prema that tas hnge re ‘ground of any e110, Omsaien OH ieplatty mn he rovgynnder- oF charges. unless in the opanwen of navn ot revision, a failure » 1S. 4641) The abject of the charge #8 09 give an accu mative of the master ed with. That does not touch jurosictwon Mt the pecemeary i conveyed to him and ne preys i charges. the accused cannot suct rharges framed were defective.” The Su tye dado ait A ayes 1 JUrLe haw 40 Fact been exces ‘used Ws bit because id by imetely shavw tig that the me Court has ubserved We are unable to find any magic or chiarin sn the rial of charge. IU the substance of these provisions {relating ts charge hat count and not their outward form. To nold eaherwive 1s only lo provide avenues or escape for the guilty and afford nw prosectiom {0 the imnocens. 5) If the cour of appeal. confirmation or rev ailure of justice on 16 of opinion that hhas in fact been occasioned, it may 1m the case of an omission to frarne a charge, order that a charge be framed and that trial be recommenced from the pornt imme diately after the framing of the charge in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge direct a new trial 1o be had upon a charge framed in whatever ‘manner it thinks fit. However. if the court i» of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be referred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction. Kahan Singh Ste of Harvana, (W911) 3 SCC 226 1911 SCC (Cx) 426. 431-1971 Co 906 2 Midie (Wiliam) Slaneyv. Sate of M P1986 Cri LS 291, 302: AIR N96 SC 116: ng 20 Chtaranyan Das State of W.B. (1963) 1CaiL) 34° AIR 1963 SC 16 re $5 Atharam Bhuvandin Yadav ¥. State of Maharashira. 99 Co 1) 1252 (Bam HCY. Y Sizarham v State of Kerala, WH CoiLS 2211 ther HC)