Section 207 and Section 208-
207.Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents- In any case where the
proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to
the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following: -
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the
prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to
which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of
section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police
report under sub-
section (5) of section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in
clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a
copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall
be furnished to the accuse:
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is
voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will
only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.
The object behind this obligation of the magistrate is to see that all the documents, necessary to
give the accused person all the information for the proper conduct of his defence, are furnished
to him well in advance to the trial. This obligation is laid on magistrate taking cognizance on a
police report.
208- Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of
Session- Where, in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate
issuing process under section 204 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session,
the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the
following: -
(i) the statements recorded under section 200 or section 202, of all persons examined by the
Magistrate;
(ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under section 161 or section 164;
(iii) any documents produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely:
Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document is voluminous, he shall,
instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to
inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.
Charge
complaint
155
examination of
complainant/witnesses
200
Investigation or Inquiry
202
Dismissal 203
supply of copy
Issue of of police
FIR Investigation Police Report Cognizance commitment
Process report other
154 charge
156-176 173 (&169) 190 documents 209
204 /statements
207, 208
Purpose and Policy of Charge
Section 2(b) of the CrPC explains charge but does not define it. It simply says that where a charge contains more
heads of accusation than one, the charge, in that case shall include a reference to each of such heads. It does not
lay down the content of charge.
Charge is an accusation made against a person in respect of an act committed or omitted in violation of a penal law
forbidding or commanding it. Charge is also name given to a basic document, a first notice, that gives information
to the accused about the offences with which he is charged and is called at the trial. He cannot be held guilty for
something of which he has not been charged. Charge is a stage of transition between enquiry and trial. It is
through charge that the accused gets exact intimation, with certainty and accuracy, the offences for which trial is
to be conducted. Charge is therefore essential for effective trial as the accused cannot prepare for effective
defence in its absence. It is also important for prosecution as charge confirms the offences with which the accused
has been charged and clarifies the nature of evidences that may be required to be collected. Further, after charge
framing there is a stage of plea of guilt. If accused is not informed of offences for which he is charged, he will not
be able to plead guilty.
It is to be noted that plea of guilt does not mean that the accused has confessed the offence. Rather plea of guilt
means that he will not take defence in the trial even though prosecution proves the case against him beyond
reasonable doubt. Plea of guilt is not a confession and it is not a piece of evidence as, rather it is simply a
declaration of non participation in the trial even if the prosecution proves its evidences. The court is free to do any
of the following upon plea of guilt by the accused –
- convict the accused then and there upon such plea of guilt
- or to conduct a trial and require the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
If the court proceeds for trial accused will not be stopped from proving evidences for his defence merely on the
ground that he has taken plea of guilt. If court goes for trial and asks prosecution to prove the case the accused is
free to take evidences for his defence. Thus for the purpose of taking an effective plea of guilt as well as for taking
an effective evidence at trial state it would be essential for the accused to know the exact offence for which he is
being tried.
Accordingly, section 211 to section 214 lays down the essential particulars which are required to be stated in the
charge so as to give the accused an exact notice of the offence or offences for which he has to defend himself at
the trial stage or to effectively undergo the stage of plea of guilt.
A charge must necessarily contain the following:
- A statement of the offence with which the accused is charged (Section 211 (1))
- A statement of the law and the section of the law against which the offence is said to have been
committed section 211 (4)
- Particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and the person against whom or the thing in
respect of which it was committed section 212
- particulars of the persons against whom or the thing in respect of which the offence was committed
section 212
- particulars of the manner in which the alleged offence was committed should also be stated where the
aforesaid particulars do not give the accused sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged.
section 213
- The fact, date and place of the previous conviction is also to be mentioned in the charge where it is
intended by the prosecution to prove a previous conviction of the accused for the purpose of enhancing
the punishment or punishment of a different kind for the subsequent offence e.g. under section 75 I.P.C.
211 (7)
In which cases framing of charges is required?
A charge must be framed (i) in a case triable under the warrant procedure (sec 240, section 246) (ii) in a trial before
a court of session (section 228). No charge need to be framed in cases triable under the summons procedure
(section 251) or at a summary trial (section 262). Therefore, except in summons case and in summary trial, a
charge has to be framed at some stage or other, in every trial.
Total Omission to frame charges
Though the code requires framing of the charge in warrant and serious cases, the trial is not necessarily vitiated if
no formal charge is framed. However, it will have that consequence if it occasions failure of justice. For example-
where the materials on the record showed in the prosecution case that the murder was committed by the culprits
in furtherance of the common intention of all, there could be no prejudice if the charge under section 302/149 was
altered to a charge under section 302/34 IPC or section 326/34. But the framing charge against the accused for
offence under section 302/149 IPC, the accused cannot be convicted for the substantive offence under section 302
simpliciter. When charges were framed against the accused only under section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by
dangerous weapons or means), conviction under section 307 (attempt to murder) IPC is not sustainable because
the accused has been prejudiced by such conviction without any charges under section 307 IPC. (similar examples
of where it can or cannot cause prejudice please see pgs 1144, 1145 of DD Basu, Volume II)
Section 211- Contents of Charge
Section 211 – (1)- Every charge under this code shall state the offence with which the accused is charged.
(2) If the law which creates the offences gives any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by
that name only.
(3) If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much of the definition of the offence
must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(4) The law and section of the law against which the offence is said to have been committed shall be mentioned in
the charge.
(5) The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to
constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case.
(6) The charge shall be written in the language of the court.
(7) If the accused, having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable by reason of such previous conviction,
to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to
prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the court may think fit to award
for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge; and if
such statement has been omitted, the court may add it at any time before the sentence is passed.
Charge shall state offence with which the accused is charged. Specific name of the offence shall be mentioned if
such name is given by law. Example: murder. If law creating the offence does not give any specific name then so
much of definition of offence must be stated as to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
The fact that the charge is made is equivalent to a statement that every legal condition required by law to
constitute the offence charged was fulfilled in the particular case. The charge shall be written in the language of
court.
Section 211(7)- Example- Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that if an accused was already convicted
for offences under chapter 12 chapter 17 for 3 years imprisonment or more and such person commits same
offence again then under section 75 he may get imprisonment for enhanced sentence which may go upto the life
imprisonment or to imprisonment of either description for a term extending upto 10 years.
Section 212- Particulars as to time place and person
Section 212- (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of alleged offence, and the
person (if any) against whom or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably
sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(2)When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other
movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable
property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed and the dates between which the
offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so
framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 219:
Provided that the time included between the first and last of such date shall not exceed one year.
The charge shall contain particulars as to the time of the alleged offence the place of the alleged offence, the
person against whom the offences committed or the thing if any in respect of which it was committed. When the
accused is charged under several offences while framing charge, details of each offences are to be stated with
reference to the particular accused who committed the offence and the person against whom the offence has
been committed. And if the charge is having two or more heads, each charge must be separately detailed.
Sub section (2)- When accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or misappropriation of money or other
immovable property it shall be sufficient to specify gross sum, describe the movable property with respect to
which the offence was committed, dates between which the offences committed. Charge so framed shall be
deemed to be a charge of an offence within the meaning of section 219. In Ranchodlal vs State of MP AIR 1965 SC
1248, the Supreme Court has held that if it is possible to specify each particular item with respect to which criminal
breach of trust took place or the exact date on which the individual items were misappropriated, there would be a
charge for each of such breach or misappropriation as a distinct offence for a distinct charge. However, if that is
not possible, then the exception allows to lump up the various items and to mention the total amount
misappropriated within a year, in the charge. When so done, the charge is deemed to be the charge of one
offence.
However, because only two offences have been specifically mentioned here does not mean that section 212(1)
requires that in every other case the precise date and time when the offence was committed must be given in the
charge. If it is urged that there has been a contravention of section 212 (1), the court will have to examine all the
relevant facts whether it was possible for the prosecution to furnish the date and time more precisely and if so,
whether the accused has been prejudiced because of such defect in the charge. In answering the first test, the
court has to look into the nature of the information available to the prosecution when the charge was framed, in a
given case. There would of course, be a violation of article 212(1) where it was possible to give precise date and
time and yet it was not given.
Proviso- The joinder under section 212 (2) will be permissible only where the items of embezzlement sought to be
included in one charge took place within a period of one year. When they extend over 1 year, they cannot be
joined in one charge, unless the case comes under some other provision. However, in State of Bombay Vs
Umarsaheb 1962 Supp 2SCR 711, SC held that though the items of embezzlement extending over more than one
year were included in one charge, in contravention of the proviso to section 212 (2), it would not vitiate that the
trial because they formed part of one transaction, having been committed in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, so
as to be covered by section 220(1).
Failure to give all particulars required under section 211 and 212 (1) would not vitiate the proceeding unless it is
shown that the accused has in fact been misled by such omission or that it has occasioned a failure of justice.
Further, section 465 (2) read with section 464 unless the accused raised his objection against such omission, he
would not be allowed to raise the plea that the omission in the charge has occasioned a failure of justice even
though the other co-conspirators had been acquitted by the trial court.
Section 213 - When manner of committing the offence must be stated
When the nature of case is such that the particulars mentioned under section 211 and 212 don’t give the accused
sufficient notice of the matter with which he is charged, the charge shall also contain such particulars of the
manner in which the offence was committed as will be sufficient for that purpose. For example A is accused of
cheating B at a given time and place the charge must set out the manner in which A cheated B.
Section 214 - Words in charge taken in sense of law under which the offence is punishable
In every charge words used in describing an offence shall be deemed to have been used in the sense attached to
them respectively by the law under which such offence is punishable. Section 214 is a declaratory provision that
meaning of particular word mentioned in the charge is the same as in the act or statute in which that offence is
defined.
Section 215- Effect of Errors
No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge and no omission to state
the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in
fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.
This section talks of defect in framing of charges. There are many kinds of defects in framing of charges as
discussed in various sections of CrPC. Especially relevant is section 464. The defects can be summarised as follows
and sections of CrPC which may cover them:
1. No charge framed (omission to frame charge) - it is a big defect- which is not covered under this section
but only under section 464.
2. Wrongly stated particulars (charge is framed but error is committed in stating some particulars in the
charge)- This may be covered in both section 215 and section 464
3. Omitted to state particulars (omissions- some particulars may have been omitted in the charge) – this may
be covered under both section 215 and section 464
4. Proceeding of charge was not followed (hearing of charge was not conducted; charge was not read over
to him)- only section 464.
Therefore, section 215 only talks of error (2 above) and omission (3 above) and also explains the nature of such
error (in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge) and omission (to state the
offence or those particulars). If any of these kinds of error or omission happens, it shall not be regarded as material
unless accused was misled by such error or omission and it has occasion of failure of justice. Section 464, on the
other hand talks of any kind of error or omission or irregularity in relation to the charge. Further, section 464 can
be invoked only after the trial, at the stage of appeal, confirmation or revision, while section 215 is applicable at
any stage of the case.
Section 215 presumes that there was a charge framed but within the framed charge there was a defect either in
the form of an omission to state some particulars of the charge or in the form of wrong statement of the
particulars of charge. Such defect within the charge will amount to material defect only if accused is able to prove
that he was actually misled by the defect and that due to such defect justice failed against him that is he was not
able effectively to take evidence. It has to be proved by the accused that he was actually misled and justice had
failed against him. There fore the burden of proof is on the accused.
Meaning of the term ‘failure of justice’- This expression has been used in both section 215 as well as section 464.
There is another term which has been used along with it – ‘prejudice to the accused’. which is inseparably
connected to ‘failure of justice.’ Supreme Court has held in Kahan vs State of Haryana (1971) UJSC 422 that where
the accused has been prejudiced, there is failure of justice and conversely, where the accused has not been
prejudiced, there has been no failure of justice. According to Supreme Court in the case Chittaranjan vs State of
West Bengal AIR 1963 SC 1696 when a question of prejudice to the accused or failure of justice is raised under
section 215, 464 -465 on account if any defect, omission or misjoinder of charges, what is to be determined by the
court is whether the charge has been so framed as to give a reasonably sufficient notice of the case he has to face.
The question is not one of mere technicalities but one of substance. In the case of State of West Bengal Vs Laisal
Haque AIR 1989 SC 129, the court held that for judging the question of prejudice, the court must act with a broad
vision and not to the technicalities and the main concern should be that the accused had fair trial i.e. whether the
main facts sought to be established had been duly explained to him fairly and clearly nd whether he was given full
and fair chance to defend himself or not. However, when the defect is material, the accused has to raise such
objection at early stage and if not raised early, it cannot be said to have been prejudiced (State vs Mukteshwar
1986 CrLJ 1025 Ori)
Thus, for example, vagueness of the charge per se is no ground of vitiating it but where owing to omission of
particulars relating to time, place or the like, as to the commission of the offence, the accused was deprived of the
opportunity of raising a plea of alibi, it might be said to have caused prejudice and occasioned a failure of justice.
Similarly, where fact constituting the offence are all communicated to the accused, he cannot be said to have been
prejudiced merely because the sections of the IPC were not precisely or separately mentioned as against each
accused who were members of an unlawful assembly or conspiracy. Similarly, (similar examples on pg 1155 D D
Basu volume II)
Section 464 effect of omission to frame charge or absence of charge or error in charge
Any defect related to charge per se will not be a ground to set aside the judgement unless in the opinion of the
court failure of justice has in fact occasioned by such defect.
If court of appeal court of confirmation or court of revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact
occasioned, it may order the following:
- if defect is omission to frame charge and failure of justice due to this defect, then the court may order to
reframe the charge and recommence the trial.
- If defect is error or omission or irregularity in framed charges, then court may direct a new trial to be had
upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit. (For example - to order rectification of the error or
omission and then order for new trial)
Proviso: if court is of opinion that the facts are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused
the court shall quash the conviction.
Quashing of conviction means quashing of whole proceeding wiping out completely. It is wiped out because this
should not have been done. Expression ‘quashing’ is different than the expression ‘setting aside’. When proceeding
continued but was continued wrongly then the court prefers to set aside such proceeding and rectify the error. But
when proceeding continued which should not have been continued or even commenced, the court quashes the
whole proceeding.
Meaning of material defect-material defect means that the charge is framed and within that charge there is some
error or omission of a material particular which leads to failure of justice against the accused. That error or
omission in charge will be material defect. Judgements can be set aside on the ground of material defect in charge.
The expression ‘material defect’ implicitly includes ‘failure of justice’. Ands under section 464 a judgment can be
set aside if defect in charge has occasioned failure of justice against the accused.
Addition/ Alteration of Charges, Additional Prosecution
Section 216 – Court may alter charge
(1) Any Court may alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced.
(2) Every such alteration or addition shall be read and explained to the accused.
(3) If the alteration or addition to a charge is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is not likely, in the
opinion of the Court, to prejudice the accused in his defence or the prosecutor in the conduct of the case, the
Court may, in its discretion, after such alteration or addition has been made, proceed with the trial as if the altered
or added charge had been the original charge.
(4) If the alteration or addition is such that proceeding immediately with the trial is likely, in the opinion of the
Court, to prejudice the accused or the prosecutor as aforesaid, the Court may either direct a new trial or adjourn
the trial for such period as may be necessary.
(5) If the offence stated in the altered or added charge is one for the prosecution of which previous sanction is
necessary, the case shall not be proceeded with until such sanction is obtained, unless sanction has been already
obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is founded.
Any court before judgement is pronounced may alter or add to any charge. Adding charge means adding a new
charge. Altering charge means drop the framed charge or substitute the charge. Every such alteration or addition
shall we read and explain to the accused. In the opinion of court if trial immediately after the alteration or addition
to charge is neither going to prejudice the accused not to prosecution then the court may proceed with trial as if
such charge had been the original charge. In the opinion of court if such alteration/addition is going to prejudice
the accused or the prosecution then the court may either direct a new trial for added or altered charge or adjourn
the trial for a period as necessary. After that period court will continue with trial in the same way.
If the offence stated in altered or added charge is one for which previous sanction is necessary then the case shall
not proceed unless such sanction is is obtained or such sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on
same facts as those on which which altered or added charge is. (same fact- example- where a complaint refers to
facts which may equally support charges either under section 120B/420 or section 120B/161 and sanctions is
given for a prosecution under the former charge, an alteration of charge into the latter does not necessitate a
fresh sanction)
In case of addition alteration of charge also court first conduct a hearing then alters or adds charges. Charges are
read out and explained - then opportunity of plea of guilt on charge is given. Once that is done thereafter court
conducts proceeding for trial.
‘at any time’- Power under this section can be exercised at any time before the judgment is pronounced, subject of
course to the conditions mentioned in the section itself. The court may exercise the power in appropriate cases,
even after completion of the evidence, arguments heard, reserving the judgment. It is expected however to
exercise the power in appropriate cases in the interest of justice and that too, when there exists some material
before it that reveals some connection or link with the charge sought to be amended, added or altered. It has also
to ensure that no prejudice is going to be caused to the accused or prosecutor.
The power under this section is comprehensive enough for remedying the defects whether they arise out of the
framing of a charge or non framing of a charge and whether they are discovered at the time of inception of the
trial or at any subsequent stage of the trial, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment.
Limitations: The power of the court is subject to following limitations mentioned in this section itself:
- the alteration or addition must not operate to the prejudice of the accused
- the accused should be made fully aware of the change made in the charge
- the accused should be given full opportunity of meeting the change finally preferred against him
- there must be evidence on record to support the addition or alteration of the charge
- A superior court may exercise the power of alteration where the trial court could have done it, on the
basis of material on record.
- An application under section 216 will not lie after the accused has already been discharged of all existing
charges.
Any court- The word ‘any court’ makes it clear that the power may be exercised by a court of appeal or revision,
just as the trial court can, subject, of course, to the limitations mentioned therein.
When can alteration or addition be done and when not- On a consideration of broad probabilities of the case
based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced, if the court is satisfied that nay addition or
alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so. However unless there is evidence on record to support
addition or alteration of the charge the power to exercise the addition or alteration of the charge cannot be
exercised.
Section 217 - Recall of witnesses when charge is altered
Whenever a charge is altered or added to by the Court after the commencement of the trial, the prosecutor and
the accused shall be allowed-
(a) to recall or re-summon, and examine with reference to such alteration or addition, any witness who may have
been examined, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, considers that the prosecutor or the
accused, as the case may be, desires to recall or re-examine such witness for the purpose of vexation or delay or
for defeating the ends of justice;
(b) also to call any further witness whom the Court may think to be material.
Section 217 is consequential upon the proceedings of section 216. Once charge has been altered or added it is a
requirement of natural justice to allow the parties concerned to examine witnesses for the added or altered
charge. Therefore, section 217 allows the summoning afresh of witnesses for recalling and examining the earlier
witnesses with reference to altered or added new charge.
