Trial Courts, Public Prosecutors Should Be Vigilant While Framing Of Charges Against Accused: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that Trial Courts and the Public Prosecutors should be vigilant in the matter of framing of charges.

"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", the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal said.

In this case, the appellant-accused was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

In appeal before the Apex Court, one of the contentions raised on behalf of the accused was that there was no charge framed as regards the demands made. It was contended that because of this material defect in the charge and omission to frame a proper charge regarding demand allegedly made, grave prejudice has been caused to the appellant, who could not defend himself properly. On the other hand, the State contended that in view of Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no defect or omission in the framing of charge is fatal to the prosecution case unless any prejudice caused due to the said omission or failure of justice is established by the accused.

The bench agreed with the contention that 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. However, it observed:

"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."

The court noted that, in this case, the charge has been framed very casually

"The Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous 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"

On merits, the bench noted that there is no circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification in this case.

"To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused", it said.

The bench therefore allowed the appeal and acquiited the accused.

Case details

Soundarajan vs State | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 314 | CrA 1592 OF 2022 | 17 April 2023 | Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal

Counsel : .Sr Adv S.Nagamuthu for the appellant, Adv Dr Joseph Aristotle for the State

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Sections 211-224, 464 - Trial Courts ought to be very meticulous 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. (Para 

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ; Section 7 - To attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand for gratification has to be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The word used in Section 7, as it existed before 26th July 2018, is 'gratification'. There has to be a demand for gratification. It is not a simple demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification. If the factum of demand of gratification and acceptance thereof is proved, then the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked, and the Court can presume that the demand must be as a motive or reward for doing any official act. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused.(Para 11)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment