Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CRPC Notes
CRPC Notes
District Magistrate
(Under him)- Additional DM
Sub-Divisional Magistrate
Under him 2
-Executive Magistrate
-Special Executive Magistrate
Key Terms
Investigation : S.2(h) :
“investigation” includes all
proceedings under this Code for
the collection of evidence
conducted by a Police Officer or
by any person (other than a
Magistrate ) who is authorised in
this behalf.
SC has viewed the investigation of
an offence as generally consisting
of :
(1) Proceeding to the spot
(2) Ascertainment of the facts and circumstances of the case;
(3) Discovery and arrest of the suspected offender;
(4) Collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence which may consist of
(a) examination of various persons
(b) Search of laces or seizures
(5)Formation of the opinion whether on the material collected there is a case and if so necessary steps to file
chargesheet under S.173.
-Duty to inform & assit police - S.39 : any person aware about the commission or intention .. offence shall,
without any reasonable excuse inform the police.
-Bailable & Non-Bailable offence : S.2(a) “b.o” means which is shown as bailable in First Schedule ,or
made bailable by law. & “non. B. O “ means any other offence.
B.o : petty offences which generally fo not alarm the society. Bail can be granted by police also
n.b.o : serious in comparison- bail matter of discretion of the courts
-Cognizable & Non-cognizable :S. 2(c) “c.o” means for which ,a police officer may, in accordance with the
First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force arrest without warrant.
Offences for which special authority is given to special officers are not cognizable offences.
S.2(I) : “n.c.o”- cannot arrest without warrant
-INQUIRY v. TRIAL
-Complaint
• S.2(d) :means allegation .. orally/written ..to a magistrate …known/unknown has committed an offence.It
is not a police report
• 154. Information in cognizable cases.--
• (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer
in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over
to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid,
shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by
such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
• (2) A copy of the information as recorded under Sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to
the informant.
• (3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record
the information referred to in Sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing
and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information
discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an
investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code,
and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that
offence.
Arrest
- The word Arrest & custody has been nowhere defined in the CrPC
- In Natural sense , arrest means the restraint on or deprivation of one’s personal liberty. In its legal sense,
arrest means apprehension of a person by legal authority resulting in deprivation of personal liberty of an
individual.
- In Halsbury’s Laws of England : “Arrest consists in the seizure or touching of a person’s body with a view
to his restraint; words may ,however, amount to an arrest in the circumstances of the case ,they are
calculated to bring =, and do bring , a person’s notice that he is under compulsion and he thereafter
submits to the compulsion” The definition is somewhat to similar S.46 of CrPC
BY WHOM
- Arrest by Police officer (S.41 & S.42) :
- S.41 provide nine classes of persons who may be arrested by the police without warrant
- S.42 provide for arrest of person if he refuses to disclose his identity and if he is suspected to be one of the
offenders. But such a person must be released on bail after securing a bond if he is suspected to having
committed a non-cognizable offence.
- In case, non resident of India, S.42 makes it obligatory for sureties resident in India.
- Arrest by Private Persons (S.43)
- Only when :
I. The person is a proclaimed offender
II. The person commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence in his presence
Extraordinary- so construed strictly -Moreover without any delay person, must make over such person to a
police officer or take him to the nearest police station.
-Arrest by Magistrate (S.44)
(1) gives power to arrest a person who has committed an offence in his presence and also to keep him to
custody.
(2) Magistrate has a power to arrest a person who is suspected of having committed an offence but he has no
power to keep him to custody in this case.
- Protection of members of the Armed Forces from Arrest (S.45)
- Consent of the Central Government
HOW
- S.46 : “ (1) In making an arrest the police officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or
confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or
action.
Provided that where a woman is to be arrested, unless the circumstances indicate to the contrary, her
submission to custody on an oral intimation of arrest shall be presumed and ,unless the circumstances
otherwise require or unless the police officer is a female, the police officer shall not touch the person of the
woman for making her arrest.
(2) If such a person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such police
officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest.
(3) Nothing in this Section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence
punishable with death or with imprisonment for life.
(4) Save in exceptional circumstances, no woman shall be arrested after sunset and before sunrise, and
where such exceptional circumstances exist the women police officer shall, by making a written report,
obtain the prior permission of the Judicial Magistrate First class within whose local jurisdiction the offence
is committed or the arrest is to be made.”
• Concept of Arrest & Custody : State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar (2008) 3 SCC 2002
- Ratio : Custody, in the concept of Section 439 is physical control or at least physical presence of the
accused in court coupled with submission to the jurisdiction and order of the Court.
- Facts : Two Appeals from 2 coordinate Benches of the Same High court : Issue : what constitutes arrest
and custody in relation to criminal procedure.
- Two queries on appointment of Constable-Drivers -Haryana Police Q1. Have you ever been arrested . (2)
Have you ever been convicted.
- SC, Justice Altamas Kabir : When seen in legal sense connected to procedure of criminal offences, an
arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, for the
purpose of holding or detailing him to answer a criminal charge or of preventing the commission of
criminal offence.
- Court also evaluated the Full bench judgement of the Madras High Court in Roshan Beevi v. Govt of TN
(1984) and observed that the custody and arrest are not synonymous terms and observed that it is true that
in every arrest there is a custody but not vice-versa. A custody may amount to arrest in certain cases, but
not in all cases. Thus it disapproved the applicability of Madras high Court judgement in this case.
- The SC reiterated the decision in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar (1980) judgement wherein the concept of
arrest and custody has been correctly stated. The issue was : when is aperson in custody, within the
meaning of S.439 CrPC ? The SC in that case observed that when he I, in duress either because he is held
by the investigating agency or other police or allied authority or he is under the control of the court having
been remanded by judicial order, or having offered himself to the court’s jurisdiction and submitted to its
orders by physical presence.
- The concept was expanded in State of UP v. Deomen (1960) wherein it was inter alia observed “ S.46
SrPC, does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be takin custody. Submission to
the custody by words of mouth or action by a person is sufficient. “
- However in this case the court gave benefit of mistaken impression to the persons.
Procedure of Arrest
(2) Subject to the provisions of S.42, no person concerned in non-cognizable offence or against whom
complaint has been made or credible info has been received or reasonable suspicion exists , shall be arrested
except under a warrant or order of Magistrate.
S.41C :Control Rooms at every District : Display on board who arrested &maintain database for general
public.
S.41 D : Right of the person arrested to meet an advocate of his choice during interrogation
S.53 : Examination of the accused :
-Anil Lokhande v. State of Maharashtra , examination of the accused not confined to eternal examination
of his body but many times it is necessary to make examination of organs inside the body for the purpose of
collective evidence . This includes blood, sputum,semen,urine etc even potency test.
S.54 : Idenitification of person arrested
-D.K Basu v. State of West Bengal :to check the abuse of power , SC laid down certain basic “requirements”
to be followed in case of arrest or detention.
-Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) (Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad) - SC
- Facts :Matrimonial dispute -dowry case
- Legal Issues :
(1) Can arrest be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of a non-bailable and
cognizable offence made against a person ?
- Power to arrest greatly contributes to its arrogance so also a failure of the Magistracy to check it. Not only
this, the power of arrest is one of th lucrative sources of police corruption.
- It would be prudent and wise for a police officer that no arrest is made without a reasonable satisfaction
reached after some investigation as to the genuineness of the allegation. Despite this legal position, the
legislature did not find any improvement.
(2) Can a police officer arbitrarily arrest a person without being satisfied that the arrest is necessary for one
or the more purposes envisaged by Sub clauses (a) to (e) of S.41 CrPC ?
- An accused cannot be arrested by the police officer only on his satisfaction that such person had
committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. He has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary
to prevent such person from committing any further offence etc other conditions
-Notice clause
Decision : Pertaining to powers of S.41 - the practice of mechanically reproducing in the case diary all or
most of the reasons contained in S.41 for defecting arrest be discouraged and discontinued.
Directions :
1. All state Govts shall instruct police officers to satisfy parameters laid under S.41
2. All police officers shall be provided a check list of sub-clauses
3. They shall forward this check list to the magistrate and reasons
4. Magistrate shall peruse the report and only if satisfied shall order further detention
5. The decision not to arrest a accuse shall be forwarded to the Magistrate in 2 weeks of the institution of
the case.
6. Notice of appearance under S.41 be issued within two weeks from the date of institution of the case
7. Failure to comply - contempt of court
8. Authorising arrest without recording reasons - departmental enquiry
(1) Right of Arrested Person to Meet an Advocate of his choice during interrogation (S.41D)
(2) No unnecessary Restraint (S.49)
(3) Right to know the grounds of Arrest (Art 22(1), S.50(1), S.55 , S.75 )
(4) Information regarding the right to be released on bail
(5) Obligation of Person making arrest to inform about the arrest, etc to a nominated person : S.50A
(6) Right to be examined by a Medical Practitioner (S.54)
(7) Right to be taken before a Magistrate without delay (S.56 & S.76)
(8) Person arrested not to be detained more than 24 hours : Art 22(1), S.57 , S.167
Search (Chapter VII - Process to compel the production of Things) - Imp because in a way intrusion in
privacy and personal liberty
S.93 - Where any Court has a reason to believe that a person to whom summons or order under S.91
would not produce the document or thing
Other grounds : (b) where such document or thing is not known to the Court in possession of any person
(c) where the Court purposes of inquiry, trial or other proceeding would be served by a general search or
investigation
Rest. :Court may be specific in its orders
(S.97- Search fo persons wrongfully confined )
(S.98 - Power to compel restoration of abducted females)
S.165 - Whenever an officer incharge of a police officer or one making investigation has a reasonable
grounds of believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation —jiki vo investigation Kar
raha hai - , such offer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing
,so far as possible, the thing for which the search is to be made.. . in territorial limits
• S ofMP through CBI v. Paltan Mallah (2005) - alleged illegality of search by IO does not vitiate seizure
unless it has caused prejudice to accused — Settled position the Court in India has discretion w.r.t
admissibality of evidence in this regard.
• Sanchita investment case : Ponzi scheme - police raid ; Search was questioned & S.165 was
challenged : Court asked to return the documents & observed CTO’s letter of suspicion was not enough
should have done prelim inquiry before starting the investigation.
• However position is different in case of NDPS Act & Official Secret’s Act cases - there swiftness is
required.
S.102 : Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been
stolen or which. May be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any
offence.
Junior report to senior , police officer to Magistrate; forthwith
Subject to circumstances :daylight, school children must be allowed to go the school, no undue harassment ,
telephone lines be carefully handled.
S.161 :
(1) may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
: includes actual accused & suspect . S.161 read in conjunction with S.162.
(2) Such person be bound to answer truly all questions other than questions the answers to which would have
a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge.
(3) Officer may reduce it to a writing
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L Dani & Others : legal question regarding operation of A.20(3) and scope of
S.161(2).
Justice Krishna Iyer: S.161(2) parliamentary gloss over constitutional clause. The accused person cannot be
forced to answer questions ,he has right to keep his mouth shut if the answer sought has a reasonable
prospect of exposing him to guilt in some way or other.
However, the legal perils following upon refusal to answer , or answer truthfully cannot be regarded as
compulsion within the meaning of A.20(3).
S.162 :Statement to police is not a substantive evidence ,its neither given on oath nor is it tested by cross-
examination.
Confession
S. 164 (1) Magistrate, a may, irecord, any statement or confession made to him in the course of an
investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force or at any time afterwards
before the commencement of the inquiry or trial.
Such confessions shall be recorded and signed in the manner provided in section 364, and such statements
before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a
confession and that if he does so it may be used as evidence against him
Refer Notes
Fakhruddin Ahmad v. State of Uttrakhand (2008) : cognisance is with regard to the offence and not the
offender ; he is satisfied that, if proved would constitute an offence and thus initiate the proceedings.
Anil Sran v. State of Bihar : taking cognisance is “sina qua non” for trial.
Dr.Nupur Talwar v. CBI Delhi (2012) : SC observed that where the Magistrate takes cognisance by
rejecting the report of investigating agency and the order is well-reasoned and shows due application of mind
,superior court would refuse to interfere. Order taking cognisance can be interfered with only if it is perverse
or based on no material , but even superior courts must exercise restraints while considering an order taking
cognisance.
H.S Bains v. State (UT of Chandigarh) : police submitted report under Section 173 of Code of 1973 stating
that no case had been made out against accused and case might be dropped - Magistrate disagreed with
police and took cognizance of case directing issue of process to accused - accused alleged Magistrate not
competent to take cognizance of case as police report stated that accused did not commit the offence -
Magistrate not bound by conclusions of complaint - held, Magistrate acted within jurisdiction in taking
cognizance of offence and issuing process to accused notwithstanding that police report stated that no case
had been made out.
Abhinandan Jha and Ors. vs. Dinesh Mishra : Criminal - power of Magistrate - Sections 156 (3) and 173
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - petitioners filed petition without success in front of Sessions Judge and
High Court against Magistrate's Order directing police to submit charge sheet even when final report under
Section 173 (1) has been filed - Supreme Court observed that magistrate didn't have power to call upon
police to submit charge sheet after final report under Section 173 (1) has been filed - at most he can ask
police to carry out further investigation under Section 156 (3) if not satisfied by final report - Order of
Magistrate directing police to file charge set aside.
Rakesh vs. State of U.P. (13.08.2014 - SC) Ranjan Gogoi Complaint case - Continuation of matter -
Maintainability of - Present appeal filed against order whereby Magistrate accepted final report but
simultaneously directed that case registered against Appellant be proceeded with as complaint case and said
order was affirmed by High court - Whether Magistrate after accepting negative final report submitted by
Police could take action on basis of protest petition filed by complainant/first informant - Held, Appellant
was not justified in contending that after accepted final report Magistrate had become "functus officio" and
was denuded of all power to proceed in matter - High court was justified in affirming order of Magistrate
whereby Magistrate accepted final report and simultaneously directed that case registered against Appellant
be proceeded with as complaint case - Appeal dismissed.
Limitation : incase of private complaint : and court is aware that police is investigating it should give way to
police S.210
BAIL
Bail is contemplated to procure the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he shall
appear at the time and place designated and submit himself to the jurisdiction and judgement of the court.
The basic rule is to release the person on bail unless there are circumstances suggesting the possibility of his
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice.
J Krishna Iyer in G. Narsimhulu v Public Prosecutor : “the issue of bail os one of the liberty, justice,
justice, public safety and burden on public treasury” - personal liberty
S.436A : Undertrials : release of the accused on bail on his own purity if he has served half of the maximum
term prescribed for that offence.
S.438 : Anticipatory Bail : Discretion for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest : An insurance
upon police custody upon arrest
(1) non-bailable offence - High Court or Court of Sessions , Court may on considering
(2) The nature and gravity of the accusation
(3) Antecedents of the applicant
(4) possibilit yto flee
(5) Accusation may be made with object to injuring or humiliating
Gurbax Singh v State of Punjab (Corruption case )- J Chandrachud
• Conditions : may
• Is it unguided power : that’s why given to higher courts
• Extraordinary situations only ? Nothing of this sort said in the law
Ratio Decidendi:
"Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail
already granted."
Whether Appellants were entitled to bail as speedy trial was their fundamental right
Facts:
Grievance in the present appeals was against denial of bail pending trial/appeal where Appellants were in
custody for a long period. The Appellants were in the custody since 4th August, 2013 on the allegation of
having committed offence Under Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (the NDPS Act). Their bail application was dismissed. In the second case, the Appellant was in custody
since 11th January, 2009. He was convicted by the trial court Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
His bail application was dismissed by the High Court pending appeal. The Appellants contend that, having
regard to the long period of custody, they were entitled to bail as speedy trial was their fundamental right
Under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Held:
(i) In Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors. v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. while holding that speedy trial at all stages is
part of right Under Article 21, it was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, instead of quashing
the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion of proceedings in a fixed time. The present appeals
disposed of by directing that the pending trial in the first case and the appeal in the second case might be
disposed of within six months. [7]
(ii) Speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed Under Article 21. This
constitutional right cannot be denied even on the plea of non-availability of financial resources. The court is
entitled to issue directions to augment and strengthen investigating machinery, setting-up of new courts,
building new court houses, providing more staff and equipment to the courts, appointment of additional
judges and other measures as are necessary for speedy trial. [9]
(iii) Delay in disposal of bail applications and cases where trials are stayed are priority areas for monitoring.
Timeline for disposal of bail applications ought to be fixed by the High Court. As far as possible, bail
applications in subordinate courts should ordinarily be decided within one week and in High Courts within
two-three weeks. Posting of suitable officers in key leadership positions of Session Judges and Chief Judicial
Magistrates may perhaps go a long way in dealing with the situation. Non performers/dead wood must be
weeded out as per rules, as public interest is above individual interest. [20]
(iv) It is necessary to direct that steps be taken forthwith by all concerned to effectuate the mandate of the
fundamental right Under Article 21 especially with regard to persons in custody in view of the directions
already issued by this Court. It is desirable that each High Court frames its annual action plan fixing a
tentative time limit for subordinate courts for deciding criminal trials of persons in custody and other long
pending cases and monitors implementation of such timelines periodically. This may perhaps obviate the
need for seeking directions in individual cases from the present Court. [24]
(v) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that bail applications be disposed of normally
within one week; Magisterial trials, where Accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months
and sessions trials where Accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years; Efforts be made to
dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year; As a supplement to Section 436A, but
consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence
likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an
assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time; The above timelines may be the
touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports. The High Courts are
requested to ensure that bail applications filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month
and criminal appeals where Accused are in custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest.
The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the subordinate courts; The
High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side from
time to time; The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may be found necessary in the light of
judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India. [27]
(vi) The Chief Justices of all High Courts were requested to forthwith take appropriate steps consistent with
the directions of the present Court in Hussain Ara Khatoon, Akhtari Bi (Smt.), Noor Mohammed, Thana
Singh, S.C. Legal Aid Committee, Imtiaz Ahmad, Ex. Captain Harish Uppal and Resolution of Chief
Justices' Conference and observations and to have appropriate monitoring mechanism in place on the
administrative side as well as on the judicial side for speeding up disposal of cases of undertrials pending in
subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High Courts
Charge
The objective of charge as explained in V.C Shukla v. CBI is to serve the purpose of notice or intimation to
the accused, going clear and unambiguous or precise notice of th enature of accusation that the accused is
called upon to meet the course of trial .
Ramakrishnna v . S of Maha : judge reads the ingredients of the offence o the accused. Police carries out
investigation under S.173 and then files in court, the charge-sheet. The Court then decides which charge will
remain and which will be dropped.
Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (21.04.2009 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0640/2009
Criminal - Murder - Requirement of specification of Charge - Effect of omission to frame charge - Section
149 and 302 of Indian Penal Code - Appellants were convicted by the Trial and the High Court for the
offence of double murder as a result of village political rivalry - Hence, the present appeal - Appellants
denying their role in the crime contended that the FIR was a concocted document and there is no specific
overt act attributed to each of the accused - No charge or finding for the offence as per Section 149 -
Whether omission to frame a specific charge warrants setting aside of conviction - Held, Section 464
specifies that a finding or sentence of a Court shall not be set aside merely on the ground that a charge was
not framed or that charge was defective unless it has occasioned in prejudice - Charge No. 4 and charge No.
5 leaves no manner of doubt, since the transaction mentioned in charge No. 1 has been made integral part
thereof - All the necessary ingredients of Section 149 IPC are implicit therein except mentioning of Section
149 IPC specifically - Particulars stated in charge No. 4 and 5 are reasonably sufficient to give the
Appellants adequate notice of Section 149 IPC although not specifically mentioned - Non-framing of a
charge under Section 149 IPC, on the face of the charges framed against the appellants would not vitiate their
conviction as the accused have failed to show any prejudice in this regard - It may be considered as an
irregularity - Cannot not be a ground for setting aside the conviction and sentence -Appeal dismissed
Ratio Decidendi:
"If all the necessary ingredients of a particular Section are implicit omission to frame a specific charge will
not vitiate their conviction unless accused has showed any prejudice."
No prejudice has been caused to the appellant for non-mentioning of Section 302, I.P.C. in the charge since
all the ingredients of the offence were disclosed. The appellant had full notice and had ample opportunity to
defend himself against the same and at no earlier stage of the proceedings, the appellant had raised any
grievance. Apart from that, on overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not
found that the appellant suffered any prejudice nor has there been any failure of justice.
In the instant case, in the charge it has been clearly mentioned that the accused-appellant has committed the
murder of Anil Jha. By mentioning that the accused has committed the murder of Anil Jha, all the ingredients
of the charge have been mentioned and the requirement of Section 211, sub-section(2) has been complied
with.
P.W. 4 in his evidence clearly stated that the appellant gave him a phone call asking for money on 23.7.2005
and again on 25.7.2005 when the appellant threatened him of dire consequences for not paying the money.
P.W. 4 also stated in his evidence that he got an I.D. caller installed in his phone and he informed the police
of the phone number of the caller which is of the appellant. P.W. 4 also stated In his evidence that he had
direct talks with the appellant at hospital chawk prior to the incident when he used to demand money from
him and other shopkeepers at the time of Durga Puja and Saraswati Puja. P.W. 4 specifically stated that he
can identify the voice of Mohan Singh. The first Investigating Officer of the case (P.W. 6) in his evidence
also stated that during investigation mobile No. 9835273765 of Mohan Singh was found and mobile No.
9431428630 of Laxmi Singh was also found. P.W. 8. the other Investigating Officer of the case stated that on
23.7.2005. four calls were made between the mobile phones of Laxmi Singh and Mohan Singh. Then six
more calls were made by Laxmi Singh to Mohan Singh on 3.8.2005. i.e., on the day of the incident itself.
The printout details of these phone calls were produced before the Court. So both the trial court and High
Court considered the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 who were the Investigating Officers in this case, apart
from the evidence of P.W. 4, other witnesses and the materials on record before coming to the conclusion.
The fact that the name of registered allottees the SIM cards of these mobile phones could not be traced is not
relevant in this connection.
S.218 (Fundamental rule of charge framing) :every accused is to be charged seperately for distinct offences .
However proviso :if accused makes an application asking joinder of charges and Mag feels it will be no
prejudice he can allow supplication. — why ? Distrinct charges are for bereft of accused if he does not want
he can waive it.
Exceptions
S.219 (Three offences of same kind within same year may be charged together)
S.220 (offences committed in the course of same transaction)
S220(2) (if charged with one or more offences criminal breach of trust r dishonest misappropriation of
property or accused of facilitating or concealing such an offence)
S.220(3) , (4)
S.221(Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed)
S.222
S.223
S.224
Kantilal Chandulal Mehta vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Criminal - retrial of case - Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 342, 406 and 423 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - appellant required to send shipping document to respondent - on failure he
was convicted by Magistrate under Section 406 - appeal filed in High Court for amending charges imposed
against him - respondent contended that some additional charges must be imposed upon him - High Court
allowed that appeal and rendered case for retrial - against decision appeal filed in Supreme Court - Supreme
Court observed that Court has ample power to alter and amend the charges framed - direction of High Court
was in conformity with provisions of Criminal Procedure Code - appeal dismissed and decision of High
Court affirmed - held, by ordering amendment in charges no prejudice caused to appellant.