 Chapter 17 of the CRPC, that is the law relating to the form of jointer and non-jointer of charges. There's always a perspective which one always wants to learn. And once you have Adilakshmi Logamoti, who heads the legal-legal elites, she helps us to connect with the resource persons who are already well-known. The first time she sent a message that DSS is very popular, so you should call him. And I asked, it may be DSS to you, but what is the full form? She said no, it is DSS. What we say, district public prosecutor in Tamil Nadu, his knowledge as such, down south is already gone. We wanted that that knowledge spread like aroma. We all could enjoy that knowledge from him. And we are thankful too much to the Supreme Leader who has accepted our advice. I request Adilakshmi to give a few introductory words and then we will ask her to take over the session. To explain the law relating to the form of jointer and jointer of charges. Over to you. Thank you Vikas and thank you sir for joining in this session. And again, all the followers of Beyond Law CLC and Legal Legal Selaik. At again time we are joining together and a little more introduction about our faculty today. He is from the 1975 batch. He got enrolled at that time when many of you would not even have been born at that time. And he hails from a very reputed law firm headed by Mr. SK Sondarajan who was the leading civil lawyer and a public prosecutor. And today's faculty was also a government leader and present public prosecutor well versed in both civil and criminal side. And he holds many feathers to his hat and he's a panel lawyer with Indian Bank, BSNL, HPCL, United India Insurance, National Insurance Companies and many more. He's a resource person for the Tamil Nadu Judicial Academy. He is a person well versed in laws but he's always humble and simple. And he always says I have to make myself acquiring little more knowledge before I take a session. But he has such a passion towards the subject of law and listening to him is a blessing for every one of us. And Legal Legal Selaik platform is very happy when we are connecting with Beyond Law CLC taking us pan India. On this note I welcome our most respected and beloved TSS sir to this platform. This is not the only time you're going to come sir. We are going to trouble you time and again on various topics of law. On this note I welcome every one of the participants who have joined here and over to Vikas and sir. Thank you so much sir. Thank you. First of all, my good evening to one and all and my thanks to Vikas and Adilakshmi for having the privilege to be on this platform. Because I consider as a very very humble person to be on this platform. But anyway, Destiny has made me to be on this platform and I thank one and all for this opportunity. Now the topic that has been chosen by me is the charges as adumbrated in chapter 17 of the CRPC. Before adverting to the main subject, I just want to give a brief introduction with regard to the chapter 17. Basically chapter 17 goes from 211 to 224 and out of that 211 to 214 are with regard to the form of charges and 215 is with regard to the effect of errors in the framing of charges. And 216 pertains to the altering power of the court to alter the charges at any time before the pronouncement of the judgment. And 217 is a consequence of 216 because it allows the prosecutor and the defense counsel to recall, summon or resummon any witness to bring out the truth. And from 218 to 224 they deal with the joint of charges and more specifically 218 is the main trump card. One has because it speaks about how a charge has got to be framed for each and every distinct offense. A separate charge shall be framed for which there are exceptions. The exceptions are adumbrated in 219, 220, 221, 222 and so far as 219 and 220 and 221 are exceptions to 218. But 218 deals with distinct charges, offenses, whereas 219 and 220 operates on the platform wherein the person accused is one and the same. But different offenses as to how he can be charged with regard to different offenses of the same kind are different offenses in the course of the same transaction that is 219 and 221. 221 and 222 operate on a different platform wherein a conviction can be made without framing a charge that is 221 and 222. And so far as 223 is it is something contrary to 219 and 220 with regard to the joint of offenses with regard to the same person. But 223 is with regard to the joint of persons with regard to the commission of offenses in the course of the same transaction. So this is the sketch of the entire chapter 17. Now for proper appreciation of the form of charges and the joint of charges and the misjoint of charges, we will have to understand certain legal terms. So I just want to make an ender to explain with regard to the various terms with regard to the charges and form of charges. First we should know what is a charge? Charge has not been defined anywhere. But section 2B of the CRPC says charge includes any head of charge when the charges contains more heads than one. Then what is a charge? Charge means precise formulation of a specific accusation made against the person. So a charge is the specific accusation with regard to a particular act of the accused person. That is the charge. So if there is a charge, there shall be an offense. What is an offense? Now offense has been defined under section 40 of the IPC which says the offenses punishable under the code. Then a question may arise as to what happens to the special enactments which prescribe punishment for certain offenses. Now I shall come to that a little later after describing what is section 41 of the IPC? Section 41 of the IPC deals with special law and 42 deals with local laws. And the more important thing is section 43. It speaks about what is meant by an illegal act. Everything is illegal and everything which is an offense or which is prohibited by the law. So anything which is prohibited by the law is an offense. So every offense is an illegality. So the illegality takes its sweep. Everything which is prohibited by law. Now I come to the definition of offense given under the CRPC. Section 2N of the CRPC describes the offense as one any act or omission punishable by any law for the time being. See the word is very important. Any act or omission punishable by any law not particularly as defined in the IPC as if it is under the code. So far as the CRPC is concerned any act or omission punishable by any law for the time being is an offense. So any offense alone can be charged. Now we will go to the forms of charges. Where do we get the forms of charges? The forms of charges are emanating from section 476 of the CRPC. And the forms are provided in second schedule form 32. So the forms are already available in the criminal procedure code in the second schedule form 32. Now the offenses may be direct offenses or indirect offenses. So far as direct offenses are concerned we say 302 simplicity. But when a person is charged with a constructive liability by tagging on either 120B, 109, 34 or 149. They become I would conveniently call them as if a person is charged under section 302 read with 120B or 109 or 34 or with 149. I would call it as a sort of indirect charges but there is no term as indirect charge. But we call it as charge simplicity and charge read with another provision which is a substantive penal law just like 149 or constructive liability by arresting as out of 109 and 34. So now then with regard to the framing of charges for what are the trials which require framing of charges. Now so far as sessions cases are concerned under section 228 the charges are framed. So far as warrant cases instituted on a police case it is under 240 and so far as cases instituted otherwise on a police report it is under 246. And in all these cases charges are framed and the accused is asked to plead either guilty or admit the offense. If he pleads guilty that is the end of the matter and if he denies the charges and he claims to be an innocent man nothing to do with the offence. Then the trial commences as per the decision of the Supreme Court constitutional bench, Hardeep Singh. So from that the important material or matter for commencement of the trial is the framing of charges. To frame a charges one should be thorough with chapter 17. So that is why chapter 17 assumes more importance because it is not only the question of conveying as to the offense for which the accused is being charged but also the manner in which the offenses can be clubbed. The persons can be clubbed or dealt only under the chapter 17. And now I will go to the different terms of the ingredients of chapter 17. First thing I would state is the distinct offense. What is a distinct offense? Why the section 218 of the CRPC refer to a distinct offense? Why it does not refer a separate offense? It could have used the word separate offense. Separate offense will not convey the correct meaning. Distinct offense means which is not interrelated with other matters. The distinct offense stands alone. It is a stand alone offense. It has nothing to do with other matters. This distinct offense has been beautifully discussed by the Supreme Court in Banwari Lal Junjunwala versus Union of India reported in EIR 1963 Supreme Court 1620. I just read out the relevant portions that has been called out from the judgment. Distinct means not identical. What a beautiful definition. Distinct means not identical. It stresses characteristics that distinguish while the word separate would stress the two things not being the same. Two offenses would be distinct if they be not in any way interrelated. If there be some interrelation, there would be no distinctness and it would depend upon the circumstances of the case in which the offenses were committed. Whether there be separate charges for those offenses or not. So simply stating a distinct offense is an offense by itself and it is not identical with any other offense and it is not interrelated with any other offense. This is what is stated in section 218 of the CRPC. Because once we understand these terms, when we read the provisions right from 211 to 224, we will be able to appreciate the nuances of the provisions of law. Then comes minor offense. This minor offense has been employed in section 222. What is a minor offense? Minor offense is with reference to the quantum of punishment. If the punishment is less than the major offense, then it is called a minor offense. But does it stop there? No, definitely not. The two offenses should be cognate offenses. What do we mean by cognate? When I said distinct offenses means they are not interrelated. Whereas cognate offenses are related to some extent with each other. And most of the people who are on the civil side may know the difference between the eggnates and the cognates. Eggnate is a person who is a direct descendant of the male. So far as cognates are related through blood, not through males alone, they may be by adoption also. So cognate means it is something interrelated. So the two offenses, if you want to say it's a minor offense, the two offenses should be cognate offenses. In other words, the main ingredients of the offenses are common. The one that is punishable with lesser sentence can be regarded as a minor offense. This term has been beautifully discussed by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Ahmad. This is Rafiq Ahmad versus state of UP. There they say the term cognate offense means a lesser offense that is related to a greater offense because it shares several of the elements of the greater offense and is of the same class and category. The most important thing is it should be of the same class and category. And the another decision is Mutthumari Appan versus state represented by the Inspector of Police Tutu Kureen District reported in 2015, 3 MLJ, Criminal 429. This decision beautifully defines what is a minor offense. If one offense is made out of certain particulars whereas the other is made out of few additional particulars. One has three particulars, the other has five particulars. Then they say the former shall be construed as a minor offense provided the punishment is not more than the other offense. Major offense is made out of more particulars and the minor offense is made out of some of the particulars of the major offense. That is all. To be more precise, suppose a person is tried for 302. Now 302 is not made out. He can be convicted for 304 part 1 or part 2 or he may be convicted for causing grievous hurt or hurt. But all these cases offenses are cognate offenses arising out of the same class and category. Not only they are cognate offenses, not only they are related with each other but they come out of the same class and category. Then the most important thing is same transaction. Now if you go to section 220 and 223, the term same transaction plays a major role. What is a same transaction? Same transaction has been beautifully defined by the Supreme Court in Chimalapatti, Ganeshwara Rao, reported in 1963, Supreme Court 1850. What they say is proximity of time, place. That is the most important thing. The second thing is unity of purpose and design. And the third thing is continuity in action. Continuity of action should be there in respect of the series of acts. All the series of acts should be in continuation of one another coupled with the common purpose. That is the community of purpose or unity of purpose and the proximity of place and time. It is not necessary that all the three ingredients should coexist. But the most important aspect is the community of purpose and design for which the series of acts have been enacted. This is what they say. Proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of series of acts. And if several acts committed by the person show unity of purpose or design, it would be a strong circumstance to indicate that those acts form part of the same transaction. So they conclude what is more important is the commonality of the purpose. The community of interest that alone counts more. That is what same transaction means. The same has also been reiterated in Kuldip Yadav versus state of Bihar reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 1736. There they succinctly say where there is a commonality of purpose or design where there is a continuity of action. Then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offenses committed in the course of the same transaction. For several offenses to be part of the same transaction, the test to be applied. Now they say what is a test to be applied? The test to be applied is whether they are related to one another in point or purpose in point of purpose. Whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect or as principle and subsidiary so as to result in one continuous action. So this is what is called the same transaction. And then the most important thing is what does it mean by the term failure of justice? I refer to the term failure of justice. I refer to section 215. 215 of CRPC refers to failure of justice. What is failure of justice? Has it been defined anywhere? A similar term has been employed in section 465. All these two things 215 and 464 they speak about the error with regard to the omission to frame a charge. Whether it is fatal to the case. What they say is in 215 they say failure of justice is failure of justice. So the omission to frame a charge whether it is fatal to the case. What they say is in 215 they say that the person should have been misled as to the charges with which he is accused of as a result of which there was a failure of justice. The same thing goes with 464. They say it should have ended in failure of justice as a result of prejudice that is caused to the accused. Now we will have to understand the term. We know what is misleading. We are not able to understand what is what we have been made to think it is some other thing. So we have been misled. We can understand that so far as 215 is concerned. But what is prejudice and what is an illegality. What is an irregularity whether the irregularity is a curable irregularity or incurable irregularity. Incurable irregularity is an illegality which causes great prejudice as a result of which there will be total failure of justice. So we will have to comprehend all these terms to arrive at whether there is failure of justice. And this failure of justice is beautifully defined as an etymological chameleon by his lord Diploc, a famous English judge. This etymological chameleon is used almost in all the Supreme Court judgments. Why do they call it as a etymological chameleon? Because this term failure of justice will fit in any place. And with the help of failure of justice, the person can go scot free. That is why they call it as a etymological chameleon. Now the leading case with regard to the failure of justice is the judgment reported in William Slaney, shortly called as Willy Slaney. That is reported in 1956 Supreme Court 116 which rules the legal world even now. Of course there are certain state judgments which go against but still it is the rule of law. There for proper appreciation I will state the facts. Two brothers were charged for an offense punishable under section 302 read with 34. There is no separate charge under section 302 against any person. Ultimately the court convicted A1 who is said to have inflicted a blow on the head with a hockey stick. Whereas the second person has been acquitted. Since the charges under 302 read with 34, the court convicted A1 under section 302. The question is when the charges under section 302 read with 34, without specifying 302 simply is the charge against A1. Whether this conviction is maintainable or it is initiated as a result of failure of justice. There the Supreme Court made a distinction between two things. There were two decisions. One is Nonak Chan and the other is Suraj Pal. There the question arose when a person has been charged under 302 read with 149. And the persons have been acquitted under section 149. Can a conviction be maintained under section 302 simplicity against some of the accused persons? The Supreme Court said no because the accused person is not put on guard as to the offense under 302. And the same thing is adopted here stating that as like 149 34 is also a constructive liability. And so this conviction under 34 is not maintainable. And the Supreme Court ultimately came to the conclusion. There was a fair trial and the accused is put on guard as to who inflicted the injury with what weapon the injury has been inflicted. He understood the charge. He had a fair chance of defending himself. And in spite of that, he failed to prove his innocence. On the other hand, the prosecution has proved the role played by A1 beyond reasonable doubt and thereby gave a conviction under 302. But however, the Supreme Court, because of the fact that he survived for 10 days after the incident and that there was only one blow on the head. It converted into 304 part one. And thereby the sentence has been reduced. There they have classically employed the words I tell you. I just read out the relevant portion from William Slaney. The total absence of a charge from the beginning to the end where it is incumbent that the charge must be framed is a contravention of the code regarding the mode of trial it prescribes. So when the law prescribes a mode and there is total violation of the prescribed mode. Then it's a contravention of the code regarding the mode of trial it prescribes and a conviction of the accused in such case is invalid. And then they go further and no question of prejudice can arise. What they say is when there is total lapse, total violation of the law prescribed by the code, no question of invoking prejudice or anything. But in cases, however, where a charge is framed, now a charge has been framed under 302.34. In cases, however, where a charge is framed, but there is an omission or an irregularity. What is the omission or irregularity? The omission or irregularity is A1 has not been charged with an offence punishable under section 302 Simplicitor. It is irregularity and omission, which is a curable one, which does not go to the root of the matter, which does not mislead the accused, which does not refuse to give any fair trial to defend himself. And that is why they say where a charge is framed, but there is an omission or irregularity, but the mode of trial is not affected. The code provides that conviction may be set aside if, in fact, a failure of justice has resulted. Unless you prove that the failure of justice has resulted, the conviction cannot be set aside. It is difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to the applicability of section, the old one, 535. That is why they say it is an etymological chameleon. Now, I'll refer to another judgment. Darbara Singh versus state of Punjab, that is reported in 2013 Supreme Court 840. There they are beautifully called out the circumstances by which one can infer whether there is failure of justice, whether there is any prejudice. And what they say is whether disregard of a particular provision, disregard of a particular provision amounts to substantial denial of trial. Violation of the provision of law amounts to denial of trial, whether it is so or not, as contemplated by the court and understood by the comprehensive expression, natural justice. In the end, it is nothing but natural justice. Next thing is the law prescribes a particular mode means it should be adhered to strictly. Any violation of that would be an offensive one which is against natural justice. And for that, how to infer that they say whether the objection could have been raised at the earlier stage. So if you feel that there is going to be some error in the charge, that you are not able to understand anything, you put the same thing to the court. You raise your objection that the charges are bad in law, whether the objection would have been raised at the earlier stage, whether he had a fair trial, whether he is aware of what he is being tried. This is the most important thing. The accused should be put on guard as to the efforts for which he is being tried, whether the facts established against him or explained to him fairly. That is under 313. It should have been explained to him because you have inflicted the injury on the head with a hockey stick. It caused the fatal injury to him, whether the facts established against him or explained to him fairly, whether a fair and full chance to defend himself was provided. This is reported in Darbarasingh versus state of Tamil Nadu, state of Punjab, I am sorry, reported in 2013 Supreme Court 840. Then I would refer to the another Supreme Court judgment reported in 2013 Criminal Law Journal, 2215, Union of India and others versus ex-GNR Ajit Singh. The expression failure of justice would appear sometimes as an etymological chameleon. The court has to examine whether there is really a failure of justice or whether it is only a camouflage. So it is a duty of the court to find out whether there is a real failure of justice or it is only a camouflage to detract the court from giving a final order. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. Ultimately they say one thing, even the law bends before justice. So if there is absolute natural justice, the violation of law will give way to the justice. That is what is stated in ex-GNR Ajit Singh. Now we will come to the next term, prejudice. What is prejudice? What we think of prejudice is some sort of damage that is caused to an individual, determined to once legal right or claim. That is the actual prejudice. In judging a question of prejudice as of guilt, courts must act with a broad vision, not with a narrow mind. The courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities. And their main concern should be to see, now here comes the real crux. The main concern should be to see how to judge whether there is failure of justice. What they say is whether the accused had a fair trial. The first and foremost thing is the accused should have had a fair trial. And whether he knew what he was being tried for. The second thing is he should be aware of the charge for which he is tried. Whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly. The circumstances incriminating him should have been properly explained to him so as to elicit an answer from him. And clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself. So it is nothing but natural justice, fair play, equity and justice. When there is violation of these three things, there is failure of justice. Now the words that have been spoken by me are the judgments from William Slaney reported in 56 Supreme Court 116. And one more thing is what they say is the accused has suffered some disability or determined in respect of the protection available to him under the Indian criminal jurisprudence. The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to the investigation and the trial. What they say is it cannot go beyond these two things. Either it should be with regard to the investigation or trial. The plea of prejudice has to be in relation to investigation or trial and not with respect to matters falling outside its scope. This is actually Rafiq Ahmad as allies Rafiq versus state of UP which has already been referred to by me reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court 3114. Then I will go to another judgment so that we can understand the term very clearly. That is 1971 Supreme Court AIR 983, Kahansingh and others versus state of Haryana. There are two sets of persons. One is three set A1 to A3. The other is A1 to A4. What the court did is for the murder of two persons, A1 to A3 has been charged under 302 red with 34. Alternately A1 to A4 have been charged under 302 red with 34. Ultimately A4 has been acquitted and A1 to A3 has been convicted. Now it has been challenged. There again they refer to William Slaney and they say that no prejudice has been caused to the three accused persons because they are aware of the charges against them and the role played by them. And no prejudice has been caused to them and that is what they say that a mere defect in the charge is no ground for setting aside a conviction. Procedural laws are designed to subserve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities. The object of the charge is to give an accused notice of the matter he is charged with that doesn't touch jurisdiction. If the necessary information is conveyed to him and no prejudice is caused to him because of the charges, the accused cannot succeed by merely showing that the charges framed were defective. So what has to be done is if you feel aggrieved we should have agitated that at the earlier stage without which the law will take its own play and ultimately hold that full opportunity has been given to you and you are aware of what is what and for the offence for which you are charged. And I refer to Nanak Chand versus the state of Punjab that is referred to in 1955 Supreme Court 274. There they say a person charged with an offence read with 149 cannot be convicted of the substantive offence without a specific charge being framed as required under section old one 233. In the Nanak Chand and Suraj Paul alone have been referred and discussed in detail in William Slaney. But now because of the march of law and the paucity of evidence and the slow rate of conviction, the courts do not dwell deep into the technicalities of law. But they want to find out the truth. And if they find out that there is a ring of truth in the evidence available, then they can be team under section 302 Simplicitor that is Subash Alice Papu reported in 2022 live law Supreme Court 336. It is held there that mere non framing of a charge under 149, mere non framing of a charge under 149 would not vitiate the conviction in the absence of any prejudice caused to them. My feeling is it's a very, very departure, the great departure. See, without calling me upon to answer as to how I am responsible for 302 with even a charge and 149. How can I be convicted? But the Supreme Court has said that 302 is made up from the decisions of this court. On joint trial and separate trials, certain principles have been formulated by the Supreme Court in Nazib Singh versus state of Punjab. Nazib Singh versus state of Punjab reported in 2021 year Supreme Court 5175. There they have joined up persons, joined up charges, all those things have been discussed in detail. Since the time is very short, I don't want to go deep into those judgments, but I would only say a few lines from those judgments. Section 218 provides that separate trials shall be conducted for district offenses alleged to be committed by a person. Then they say section 219 to 221 provide exceptions to this general rule. If a person falls under these exceptions, then a joint trial for the offenses which a person is charged with may be conducted. Similarly under section 223, 223 is joined up persons. Similarly under 223, a joint trial may be held for persons charged with different offenses if any of the classes in the provisions are separately or on a combination is satisfied. While applying the principle enunciated in section 218 to 223 on conducting joint and separate trial, the trial court should apply a two-pronged test. Namely whether conducting a joint separate trial will prejudice the defense of the accused. The more important thing is whether a separate trial or a joint trial will cause prejudice to the defense of the accused. I will refer to some of the Madras judgments on this aspect a little bit later. A two-pronged test namely whether conducting a joint trial will prejudice the defense of the accused and or whether conducting a joint or separate trial would cause judicial delay. So two things are to be seen in two. One is prejudice to the defense of the accused. The another is judicial delay. The possibility of conducting a joint trial will have to be determined at the beginning of the trial and not of the trial based on the result of the trial. The upper court may determine the validity of the argument that there ought to have been separate joint trial only based on whether the trial had prejudiced the right of the accused or the prosecute tricks. Since the provisions which had graphed an exception use the phrase may with reference to conducting a joint trial, a separate trial is usually not contrary to law even if a joint trial could be conducted unless proven to cause miscarriage of justice. A conviction or acquittal of the accused cannot be set aside on the mere ground that there was a possibility of a joint trial or a separate trial. To set aside the order of conviction or acquittal what has to be proved is that the rights of the parties were prejudiced because of the joint or separate trial as the case may be. This is Nazib Singh versus state of Punjab. Then comes the illegality and irregularity. The court basically states that in a session trial there shall be a charge in writing. A deliberate breach of this basic requirement cannot be covered by the assertion that everything was morally explained to the accused, the assessors or jurors or there was no prejudice. Here what they say is when the law says that the charge should be in writing, it should be in writing. There is no question of stating that it has been morally stated or morally explained. These are the words that I have called out from William Slaney. Then they say so also where the conviction is for a totally different offense from the one charged and not covered by 236-237 because the law permits do it. The omission to frame a separate charge would be an incurable irregularity amounting to an illegality. This is where the court stands. William Slaney says that a separate charge would be incurable irregularity amounting to illegality which will vitiate the conviction. Then again they say there is a distinction between irregularity and illegality. An irregularity may be defined as a deviation from or want of adherence to rule or mode of proceeding. An irregularity is with regard to the conduct of the trial. An illegality on the other hand is an act not authorized by law. That is a distinction between irregularity and illegality. Illegality is an act which is not authorized by law. But irregularity is an act which is authorized by law but it has not been adhered to by you. And it denotes a radical defects going to the root of the matter resulting in failure of justice and incurable nature. In other words an illegality on the other hand is an act not authorized by law. And it denotes a radical defects going to the root of the matter resulting in failure of justice and incurable in nature. This is Rabindranath Ravindra Thakur. Ravindra Thakur versus the state of Bihar reported in 2017 criminal law journal 4050. Illegality can only mean an incurable illegality. Incurable because prejudice leading to failure of justice. The crux is this. Illegality can only mean an incurable illegality. Incurable because prejudice leading to failure of justice. And the final quote from William Slaney is this. That the court does not use the word illegality. Nor define irregularity and illegality. And illegality can only mean an incurable irregularity. Incurable because of prejudice leading to failure of justice. The question of prejudice again is a question of fact to be decided by the court in each particular case. So with this, I have completed the definitions of the various terms employed in the chapter 17 of the criminal procedure code. Now I'll go to the form of charges section 211 of the CRPC says what you have to state is you state the offence state the law. If the law cannot be stated definition of the offence so that the accused may understand the offence and you state the section of law. If you say you have caused murder then it can be understood. If it is a little bit criminal misappropriation or cheating, we'll have to explain certain matters and the law with which he is to be charged. Then apart from stating the offence, the section of the law, what has to be stated is the particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and against whom it was committed. That is stated in section 212. In other words, it gives a reasonable notice to the accused person with which he is charged. Section 222 is more important because it deals with criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation of money. In these two terms criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation of money does not pertain to single person and sometimes it may involve hundreds of persons. Take out the company which is seeking investment from third parties, hundreds of persons will be investing money. Ultimately those hundred persons would have been cheated. It is cheating, it is criminal misappropriation, it is criminal breach of trust. All those things are coming in. When hundred persons are there, whether hundred charges should be filed for each individual with due respect it is no. This is what this section 222 says. Criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation what it says is you specify the gross sum. The total sum alone can be mentioned but what it says is the matter should be within the meaning of section 219 CRPC and it should not exceed one year. What is 219 CRPC? It should be of the same offense, same kind of offense. If it is 403 it should be 403 for all. If it is 406 it should be 406 for all. If it is 420 it should be 420 for all. This judgment has been, this aspect has been beautifully dealt by a Metra's judgment. Reported in Pancha Charam versus State Inspector of Police that is reported in. I will give the citation a little bit later. I will give the citation a little bit later. And there in that case it was a criminal misappropriation between the period 1089 to 1012005. What they did is from 1999 to 2004 for six different spells they have made out the charges each one for one year. So six final reports, one FIR, six final reports for six different spells of 12 months duration. That is the judgment with regard to falsification of accounts and misappropriation in Pancha Charam versus State represented by Inspector of Police. And the other thing is Subaya Kwanar versus State by the Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Coimbatore. Reported in 2019, zero supreme Metra's 2459. There as stated by me a little bit earlier, there was a cheat transaction. The organizer collected money to the tune of 3 lakhs from 30 victims. What they did is from 448 to 2002 to 34 2003 for one year, 18000 rupees. The other spell is 442003 to 62003. That's for one lakh 20,000 rupees. The total amount is three lakhs. If you read the judgment, it has been beautifully dealt with throughout the application of 212, 219, 220 and section 71 of the IPC. What is sound tone of the IPC? Suppose if you beat a person 30 times, can he be charged 30 times? No, it is only for once. Similarly, here 30 persons have been cheated or their money has been misappropriated and he cannot be convicted for 30 times. But within the permissible law, they have been charged under two charges. This Punjab Charan versus State Representative Inspector of Police that is reported in 2011, zero supreme Metra's 1550. The judgment of his lawsuit justice PR Sivakumar reported in 183 2011. And this is what the Subhayakonar says. I just call out the relevant portion. Money is appropriated by the accused either solely or with others via criminal breach of trust or misappropriation for a period of one year can be consolidated. The gross amount determined and the gross amount so determined will be construed as one offense. That is what they say as one offense. I think this is a judgment of his lawsuit justice P. N. Prakash. There cannot be 30 charges under section 406. It is in the course of same transaction and hence two charges are tried as they form part of the same transaction. So we now go to 213. 213 if 211 and 212 do not give the requisite information to the accused. The accused needs more information than you give the full details. If section 211 and 212 do not furnish the required details to put on notice. The accused with regard to the offense, then the particulars of the manner in which the alleged offense was committed has to be stated. For example, suppose a person is charged for giving false evidence. You should state the manner in which the false evidence has been adduced or tender. Then we go to section 215. So far as 215 is concerned, this is with regard to the effect of errors. No error or omission to state the offense or particulars as material unless the accused is misled and there is occasioned failure of justice. This is something akin to 464 and I have discussed about the term failure of justice in detail earlier. So we go to the next one 216, alteration of charges. Alteration of charges is the court should not mechanically add or alter the charges. That is Jaswinder Saini versus state that is reported in 2013, 3 SCC criminal 295. When a charge can be altered, a charge can be added or altered. Only when there is a premise a case that is Dr. Nallapareddy reported in 2020 Supreme Court 753. Then it was once thought that neither the public prosecutor nor the informant nor the victim have got any right to approach the court to seek for adding certain charges or altering the charges. That was earlier but now the victim as well as the public prosecutor can seek the direction of the court to alter the charges that is reported in Anand Prakash Sinha, Alice Anand Sinha versus state of Ariana reported in 2016 2 SCC criminal 525. There was a time wherein once a person has been discharged, 319 is not applicable because he has got to be charged. But that has been basically overruled now and that is a judgment reported in 1990 Supreme Court 2158. Sohanlal and others versus state of Rajasthan. Add means add to any charge, addition of a new charge. Alteration of a charge means changing or variation of an existing charge or making a different charge. And Anand Prakash Sinha says it can be altered even before recording the evidence and the alteration can be made before the judgment is pronounced. Now you have the latest judgment that is reported in 2020-23 Supreme Court 1, Sukmal Singh Kaira wherein they have made it that if it is an acutal that is the end of it. But if it is a conviction, conviction does not end in the pronouncement of the judgment. Conviction has got to be followed by sentence. Before giving the sentence, a charge can be altered that is Sukmal Singh Kaira. Based on that I derive that and it is obligatory on the part of the session judge to bring it to the notice of the accused and explain the same to the accused. Without bringing to the notice of the accused, no charge can be altered. If it is altered, it is initiated. That is reported in 2006 Supreme Court 2747, Sabhi Malasu and the state of Andhra Pradesh. And one more thing is important is 216 reads with regard to adding of charges or alteration of charges. It does not help any person to withdraw any charge or delete any charge. That is reported in Selvijay Jailita case reported in 2002 ALT criminal 230 and section 217 refers to the recalling and resummoning of the witnesses. It does not give any element of choice to the judge. It shall recall if so required unless otherwise the court feels that it is applied to defeat and delay the course of justice. Then we go to the genre of charges. Now I'll finish it within another 5 to 10 minutes. I am sorry I have taken a little long because now I come to the last leg of this interactive session namely joint of charges. I already referred to section 218. 218 says for each and every distinct offense there shall be a separate charge. The exceptions are 290, 220, 221, 223. I have already stated the joint of offenses are dealt under 219 and 220. Joint of persons are dealt under 223 and a conviction can be based without any charge is dealt under 221 and 222. Now I go to even in 218 I refer to one judgment of Justice Nagamuttu which is reported in 2011 for MLJ criminal 234 that is Durai Munusami versus state of Tamil Nadu representative with additional superintendent of police. There it's a question of leakage of papers, question papers, examination. What had happened was there were two tests written test one on 273 2005, another on 16 2005 and the persons are different. Period is different. So 223 will not be applicable in this case. 223 is applicable only when it forms part of the same transaction. 219 also will not applicable because 219 is applicable only with the same person, same kind of offenses. So the court held the trial is initiated and then I go to 219. 219 as I stated, same person, more offenses of the same kind within a span of 12 months, not more than three offenses. 221, this is with regard to number of offenses but person is one, same person, same person commits different offenses in the course of same transaction. So he can be charged for different offenses under one trial. That is Manjula versus Colgate, Forma, India limited. This is reported in 2006 5CTC 303. This is a division-based judgment of the Madrasai Court rendered by Justice Sadasimha as he was done and Justice Manikumar as he was done. And it was conducted by Mr. Kannan who later became the High Court Judge of the Himachal Pradesh, I believe. There what had happened is checks, see that is number of checks have been nearly 16 checks have been issued under one notice. Deposit under one and the same day, there they refer to 219 and 220 and ultimately held that 219 cannot control 220 and held that the action is maintainable. That is 221 of the CRPC. In other words, series of acts so connected together to form the same transaction, more offenses by the same person and under section 220, it can be maintained. 222 refers to criminal breach of trust and dishonest misappropriation. Already I referred to the Subhayakwana case when I dealt with the one, when I dealt with 192, I am sorry, 222. 222 is dealt under 222 also that is Subhayakwana and 219 will be applicable because 222 read with 71 IPC hence 2 that is Subhayakwana case where in 180,000 and 120,000 two charges have been framed. 223 that deals with the act constitutes and fall within the definition of two or more offenses. Suppose if the same act constitutes two different offenses, he can be charged for two offenses. There is 352 and 323, 411 and 414 and 224 deals with if several acts are combined constitute an offense, he may be tried for all the offenses and that is 323 is causing hurt and then again he commits robbery that is 392. Put together it comes into 394 so that is 224 and 221 and 222 enables the court to convict a person even without framing a charge. 221 refers to doubtful charges and alternate charges. 222 once says the series of acts may constitute several offenses like theft, 379, receiving stolen properties, 411, criminal breach of trust, 406, cheating, 420. When that is so he may be charged for all or any of such offenses or in the alternate he may be charged having committed any one of the said offenses. He may be charged for all the offenses like that one 222 to read with if he charged one offense say 379. But in the evidence it comes out it is an offense punishable under 411 he can be convicted under 411. This is not major and minor offense this is a different one but 222 deals with a slightly different aspect namely when the person is charged with a major offense he can be convicted under for a minor offense. Suppose a person has been charged under 302 he can be convicted under 304 part 2 or 325 or 326 as the case may be that is 222. Here I don't want to dilate on this matters and that is why I just give the gist of the offense. 221 and 221 2 they refer to doubtful charges the difference between 221 1 and 222 2 is on this aspect several particulars and some of the particulars are also make one offense. Suppose there are five particulars they make attempt to robbery causing heart single particular. Heart two particulars robbery three more particulars robbery with heart that is 221 222 2 is minor offense and major offense. Now I come to the last leg of the joint of charges namely 223. 223 deals with the joint of persons not with regard to joint of offenses joint of persons may be made and they may be tried together if they are accused of the same offense or more than one offense or abutment of any offense. But it should be in the course of the same transaction. And often sir the same kind they may be tried jointly and tried together. Thus I come to the conclusion of my interactive session. If anybody has got any doubt with regard to any of these matters they may post questions and we can wind up this session. Thank you sir. It was a very important session. Just check it on the YouTube. You just received on the YouTube that it is a session of immense knowledge. Satya Narayana says respected sir a lecture of immense importance with citation. Thank you. HRG very scholarly and enlightening session. It is first with excellent case study and connection of critical section and a threadbare interpretation. We are thankful to you. No questions sir. Thank you for sharing your side. These charges you know it is a little bit confusing subject I tell you. Very difficult to follow and that is why I feel people are not posting any questions. One question and 491 all family members have been added. How to take out the family members? That is case-to-case basis only. It is only on case-to-case basis only. Once you understand the concept, once you understand the judgments of what you said. The William Stanley and the Sieb Chand. If you understand those judgments they are quite extensive. Yes. Once you understand the statute also thoroughly then things are more understandable. And I fail to mention one more judgment that is Shamsheb M. Multani. The Shamsheb M. Multani case is a case wherein see it is often arising out of it. Now a person has been convicted under charge under 302. He is convicted 304B. There they say 302 and 304B are not cognate offenses. As a result of which there is total miscarriage of justice. That is M. Multani is also a case which has got to be studied by persons who want to know about charges. M. Multani and William Stanley. Very good cases. He did one session entirely. This is Veeran Kumar did only a session on William Stanley. He said that if you understand this judgment you can understand how to frame charge etc. and how to go about it. He said Veeran Kumar is also an excellent consultant. Thank you sir. Thank you very much for having given an opportunity to share my knowledge with you all. Thank you very much. We are enlightened. Adi Lakshmi would also like to say something. Thank you for the excellent session. Thank you so much sir for the excellent session. Thank you Vikas for connecting us time and game all. Thank you sir. Thank you.