Scribd
Upload
131 views9 pages

211 - State The Offence Specific Name 211 - State The Offence Specific Name

The document discusses various sections of Indian criminal law relating to charging offenders with crimes. It summarizes sections 211-224 which deal with specifying the offense, time and place of the alleged crime, previous convictions, manner of the offense, altering or adding charges, recalling witnesses, being charged with more than one offense from the same course of conduct, being charged with an uncertain offense, being convicted of a lesser included offense, who can be jointly charged, and withdrawing remaining charges after conviction. The document also discusses and cites several relevant court cases that have interpreted these sections of criminal procedure.

Uploaded by

Sejal Lahoti
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
131 views9 pages

211 - State The Offence Specific Name 211 - State The Offence Specific Name

The document discusses various sections of Indian criminal law relating to charging offenders with crimes. It summarizes sections 211-224 which deal with specifying the offense, time and place of the alleged crime, previous convictions, manner of the offense, altering or adding charges, recalling witnesses, being charged with more than one offense from the same course of conduct, being charged with an uncertain offense, being convicted of a lesser included offense, who can be jointly charged, and withdrawing remaining charges after conviction. The document also discusses and cites several relevant court cases that have interpreted these sections of criminal procedure.

Uploaded by

Sejal Lahoti
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

The Charge Section 211- 224

211 - State the 211 - Law & Section 212


offence  • Legal condition • Time & place
• specific name • Language of the alleged
• Previous offence
• definition  • Person or
Conviction 
thing
• Om prakash v. State of U.P, AIR 1960 SC 409,
• State of A.P v. Thakkidiram Reddy, AIR 1998 SC 2702
• State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi (2003) 2 SCC 711. (2005) 1 SCC 568,
• K. Prema S. Rao And Anr vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao And Ors, AIR 2003 SC
• Rafiq Ahmed v State of U.P, AIR 2011 SC 3114
• Sajjan Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 2011 SC 632
213 Manner 216 - Alteration or 217 - Recall of
• 214 - addition of charge witnesses
• Sense of law • Prejudicial ? • Reasons to be
• 215 - • Sanction for recorded in
• Effect of errors prosecution writing
• Vexation or
delay
• State of
Maharashtra v
.Kantilal Chandumal Mehta Salman Salim
.Thakur Shah v Emperor,
v State of Maharashtra, AIR
AIR 1943 PC 192 Khan, (2004) 1
1970 SC 359,
.Anant Prakash Sinha @ SCC 525
.Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi
v State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 Anant Sinha vs State Of • Rajbir v. State of
SC 2078, Haryana , AIR 2016 SC Haryana, AIR 2011
  1197 SC 568
Section 218 Separate charges for distinct offences.

distinct offence

application in writing

Banwari Lal
Jhunjhunwalaand ... vs Union
Of India And Another., AIR
1963 SC 1620
Section 219 Three offences of same kind within
year may be charged together.

more offences than one of the same kind committed

within the space of twelve months

from the first to the last of such offences,

whether in respect of the same person or not,

he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for,

any number of them not exceeding three


Section 220 Trial for more than one offence

one series of criminal


acts so breach of
two or more itself or
connected trust or
separate themselves
together as dishonest
definitions constitute an
to form the misappropri
of any law offence
same ation of
transaction property

Mohinder Singh v. State of


Punjab, AIR 1999SC211
• State of Maharashtra v. Priya sharan maharaj and
others,  (1997) 4 SCC 393]
• Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. the Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another - (2013) 6 SCC 348.
• Surendra Singh Rautela @ Surendra Singh Bengali Vs. State
of Bihar (Now State of Jharkhand) AIR 2002 SC 260  
• Ramesh Vithal Patil Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. (2014) 11
SCC 516 
• Shamnasheb M. Multtani Vs. State of Karnataka, (2001) 2 SCC
577.
• Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur v. State of Rajasthan :
2007CriLJ4080
• Dalbir Singh vs State Of U.P
• Lalu Prasad vs. State thr. CBI (2003) 11 SCC 786
• R.Dineshkumar@Deena vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
•  Essar Teleholdings Ltd vs Cbi,
Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed. Section 221

it is doubtful which
of several offences
charged with one
offence, and it the facts which can
appears in be proved will
evidence that he constitute an
committed a offence
different offence

he may be charged
in the alternative
committed all or
with having
any of such
committed some
offences,
one of the said
offences.
and any number of
such charges may
be tried at once:
When offence proved included in offence charged Section 222.

• person is charged with an offence consisting of several


particulars,
• a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete
minor offence
• charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a
minor offence,
• person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an
attempt to commit such offence 
• conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of
that minor offence have not been satisfied.

• Pandhrinath v. State of Maharashtra., AIR 2010 SC 1453.


• 223. What persons may be charged jointly
• 224. Withdrawal of remaining charges on conviction on one of several charges.
• If a magistrate has power to record statement of any person under Section 164 of
the Code, even without the investigating officer moving for it, then there is no
good reason to limit the power to exceptional cases. We are unable to draw up a
dividing line between witnesses whose statements are liable to be recorded by the
magistrate on being approached for that purpose and those not to be recorded.
The contention that there may be instances when the investigating officer would
be disinclined to record statements of willing witnesses and therefore such
witnesses must have a remedy to have their version regarding a case put on
record, is no answer to the question whether any intending witness can
straightaway approach a magistrate for recording his statement under Section
164 of the Code. Even for such witnesses provisions are available in law, e.g. the
accused can cite them as defence witnesses during trial or the court can be
requested to summon them under Section 311 of the Code. When such remedies
are available to witnesses (who may be sidelined by the investigating officers) we
do not find any special reason why the magistrate should be burdened with the
additional task of recording the statements of all and sundry who may knock at
the door of the court with a request to record their statements under Section
164 of the Code. Jogendra Nahak & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors  2000 1 SCC
272 

You might also like