EFFECT OF THE FAILURE TO FRAME A PROPER CHARGE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1592 OF 2022
SOUNDARAJAN APPELLANT
v.
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF
POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION
DINDIGUL ...RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
7EFFECT OF THE FAILURE TO FRAME A PROPER
CHARGE
13. We must deal with another argument made by the
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. That is
about the failure to frame a proper charge for the offence
punishable under Section 7. The relevant portion of the
charge reads thus:
You, working as the Sub Registrar at
Kannivadi, Dindigul District from
27.10.2003 to 27.10.2003 and as such you
are a public servant you registered the sale
deed of 16.05 cents of land purchased by
Sundaramoorthy on 12.07.2004 and
demanded a sum of Rs.500/ from
Sundaramoorthy as gratification other than
legal remuneration for returning the
registered document and also received
Rs.500/ as bribe, hence you disclosed the
offences punishable u/s. 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988 and triable by this
Court.
Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022
Page 8 of 10
14. Thus, the Special Court omitted to frame a specific
charge on demand allegedly made by the appellant on 6th
and 13th August 2004 and acceptance thereof on 13th
August 2004.
15. Under Section 464 of CrPC, omission to frame a
charge or any error in charge is never fatal unless, in the
opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact been
occasioned thereby. In this case, from the perusal of the
crossexamination of PW3 and other prosecution witnesses
made by the Advocate for the appellant, it is apparent that
the appellant had clearly understood the prosecution case
about the first alleged demand made on 6th August 2004
and the subsequent alleged demand and acceptance on 13th
August 2004. There is no doubt that this is a case of
omission to frame a proper charge, and whatever charge
has been framed is, per se defective. However, by reason of
the said omission or defect, the accused was not prejudiced
insofar as his right to defend is concerned. Therefore, in
this case, the omission to frame charge and/or error in
framing charge is not fatal.
16. We find that, in this case, the charge has been framed
very casually. The Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous
Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2022
Page 9 of 10
when it comes to the framing of charges. In a given case,
any such error or omission may lead to acquittal and/or a
long delay in trial due to an order of remand which can be
passed under subsection (2) of Section 464 of CrPC. Apart
from the duty of the Trial Court, even the public prosecutor
has a duty to be vigilant, and if a proper charge is not
framed, it is his duty to apply to the Court to frame an
appropriate charge.