Legal Provisions of Section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Framing of charge:
A reading of Sections 227 and 228 together would make it clear that the purpose of these two sections is to ensure that the Court is satisfied that the accusation made against the accused person is not frivolous and the FIR or statements of witness discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence against him.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Thus before framing a charge the Court should properly evaluate the material and documents before it and apply its mind to ensure that this is a prima facie case against the accused. Where charge is mechanically framed without application of mind regarding existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the conviction is liable to be set aside.
Thus in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapata large number of accused were involved, the order of the Court indicated reasons for not charging some of them but gave no reasons as to why the others were being charged.
Image Source : luna.edu
Therefore, the order was quashed since it was passed without application of mind by the Court. When the judge is of the opinion that an offence has been committed and it is triable by his Court, he will frame a charge in writing against the accused. But if he finds that the offence is not exclusively triable by him, he will frame a charge and transfer the case to Chief Judicial Magistrate.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Sub-section (2) requires that the charge made against the accused should not only be read out but should also be explained to him in clear and unambiguous terms. The default or omission to read out or explain the charge will not vitiate the trial unless it is shown that it has caused prejudice to the accused. Obviously, the accused cannot be called upon to plead until a charge is framed against him. However, no reasons are required to be assigned in the order framing in charge.
Relevant cases:
In Janki Ballav Patnaik v. State of Orissa, the accused was alleged to possess assets disproportionate to his known source of income and booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Orissa High Court quashed the charge against the accused on the ground that the income of his wife from her daily and other allowances as Member of Lok Sabha was not taken into account by the Special Judge and had it been taken into consideration the whole assets would have been properly accounted for and there would have been no allegation against the accused.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In a dacoity case, the accused was neither named in FIR nor any witness named him nor any incriminating article was recovered from his possession but the only evidence placed before the Court was that he was named by co-accused before the police, the High Court set aside the charge framed against the accused under Sections 395/397 IPC on the ground that the evidence against the accused was not legally provable as it was hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
In Gaddala Deshaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the accused persons were charged for offence under Sections 302, 147 read with Section 149, I.P.C. They were all acquitted from the said charges as prosecution case was disbelieved by the Court. Appellants in this case had allegedly gone to the house of the deceased along-with co-accused and took him away and thereafter caused his murder.
As such they were convicted under Section 364, (kidnapping or abducting for murder), I.P.C. As no specific charge under Section 364, I.P.C. was framed; hence it had prejudiced the appellant. The conviction of the appellant, therefore, could not be sustained as co-accused similarly placed was also acquitted.
In a burning incident, the involvement of the accused was alleged and charges were framed against him under Sections 302/304/498, IPC. The High Court quashed the charges on the ground that the incident had taken place all of a sudden as averred by the deceased wife herself in her statement.
Once the charge has been framed and read out to the accused under this section, the trial has to proceed and it cannot be put to an end abruptly by discharging the accused under Section 227 of the Code. However, if the accused feels aggrieved by reasons of the charge, he has either to face trial or invoke revisional jurisdiction of the concerned High Court.
In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI) charge was framed against the accused woman employee for offence of fraud and mis-representation of huge amount of Government money by dishonestly processing and verifying fake bills which were neither raised nor signed by the appropriate authority, her plea that she signed the bills in normal course of her duty was not tenable because once a person signs on a document he/she is expected to make some enquiry before signing it.
Therefore, it was held that presence of material on record in the instant case was sufficient for the Court to form an opinion that accused ‘might’ have committed the offence and it was enough to frame charge against her.
Before framing a charge, the Court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed before it on record and must be satisfied that the commitment of offence by the accused was possible. Whether in fact he committed the offence or not, can only be decided in the trial.
In the instant case advertisement of six bogus firms had been published and 76 bogus bills worth Rs. 30,30,057 were submitted for payment by signing under non-existent fictitious names. Out of these 76 bogus bills, 14 were said to be dishonestly processed, verified and signed by the accused Soma Chakravarty (the accused). Under the circumstances framing of charges against her was proper and her appeal was consequently dismissed.
In Indu Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellants (accused) were police officers. They had arrested the deceased person who was a chronic asthama patient and was charged for taking bribe. He was detained in windowless room which was full of dust and cobwebs which are known allergies for triggering asthma attack. He was brought to hospital next day in a condition of coma and his body showed no signs of pulse and respiration. The Court held the guilty police officers could be proceeded against under Section 304 Part II and Section 330 of IPC but not under Section 302 as there was nothing to establish that they wilfully intended to cause death of the deceased.
The Supreme Court has clarified in State of M. P. v. Rameshwar, that where a person is alleged to have committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it does not bar criminal proceedings against him under the criminal law.
In this case, the accused had defrauded the Bank and criminal proceedings were initiated against him. He claimed to be discharged as his offence was covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Held, the said Act does not bar resort to provisions of general criminal law, particularly when an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was involved.