Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19.Discussion on mis-joinder of charges:

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no proper charge is framed as addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar circumstances in number of cases right from the Hon'ble Constitution Bench Judgement reported in AIR 1956 SC 116. According to the Hon'ble Constitution Bench judgment, if the accused knows the nature of the case https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis through the cross examination and the entire proceedings of the case, there is no prejudice caused to the accused. In this case, during the questioning under Section 235 Cr.P.C, it was clearly stated about the nature of the case, acceptance and the nature of the case projected against the appellants. But they denied that the case as false. Further, during cross-examination of the witnesses, they have specifically stated that the accused knew the case projected against them, ie., the demand of the bribe amount and receipt of the bribe amount and the concealment of the bribe amount. In the said circumstances, in the considered view of this Court, no prejudice was caused to them. In this aspect, it is relevant to note the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applying the said principle, this Court considered the circumstances, namely, the accused addressed the questions in cross examination regarding the demand, the acceptance and possession of the document from their custody and denied everything and more particularly, in the 313 Cr.P.C proceedings, they specifically filed the written statement which discloses that they understood the entire case ie., they stated that they never received the money and the money was thrown beneath the nearby chair without handling of the same. Further, under Section 464 of Cr.P.C., the conviction cannot be set aside on the ground of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis improper framing of charges. The Section 464 of Cr.P.C., is as follows:
25.2.Sushil Ansal v. State, reported in (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 717 at page 287
160. Mr Jethmalani next argued that the charges framed against the appellant-accused, Sushil and Gopal Ansal were defective inasmuch as the same did not specify the days or period when the offence took place nor even indicate the statutory provisions, rules and regulations allegedly violated by the appellants or accuse the appellants of gross negligence which alone could constitute an offence under Section 304-A IPC. These defects, contended the learned counsel, had caused prejudice to the appellants in their defence and ought to vitiate the trial and result in their acquittal. A similar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contention, it appears, was urged by the appellants even before the High Court who has referred to the charges framed against the appellants at some length and discussed the law on the point by reference to Sections 211, 215 and Section 464 CrPC to hold that the charges were reasonably clear and that no prejudice in any case had been caused to the appellants to warrant interference with the trial or the conviction of the appellants on that ground.

Reliance in support was placed by the High Court upon the decision of this Court in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. [AIR 1956 SC 116 : 1956 Cri LJ 291] and several later decisions that have reiterated the legal position on the subject. There is in our opinion no error in the view taken by the High Court in this regard. Section 464 CrPC completely answers the contention urged on behalf of the appellants. It in no uncertain terms provides that an error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges shall not invalidate any sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction unless in the opinion of a court of appeal, confirmation or revision a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. The language employed in Section 464 is so plain that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis same does not require any elaboration as to the approach to be adopted by the Court. Even so the pronouncements of this Court not only in Slaney case [AIR 1956 SC 116 : 1956 Cri LJ 291] but in a long line of subsequent decisions place the matter beyond the pale of any further deliberation on the subject. See K.C. Mathew v. State of Travancore-