Chapter XXXV
Section 464 CrPC: Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge
New Law Update (2024)
Section 492 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge, including any misjoinder of charge, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may—
(a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommenced from the point immediately after the framing of the charge;
(b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit:
Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Sub-section (1)
This provision acts as a safeguard, ensuring that minor errors or omissions in framing a charge do not automatically invalidate a court’s decision unless it demonstrably leads to a failure of justice.
Sub-section (2)
It empowers appellate, confirmation, or revisional courts to rectify such defects by ordering a new trial, recommencing the existing trial, or even quashing a conviction if no valid charge could have been sustained.
Landmark Judgements
Willie (William) Slaney v. State of MP (1955):
This landmark Supreme Court ruling established the principle that a mere defect or irregularity in framing a charge does not automatically vitiate a trial or conviction. The crucial test is whether such an error or omission has occasioned a ‘failure of justice’ or caused prejudice to the accused, preventing them from understanding the charge or defending themselves effectively.
Main Pal v. State of Haryana (2009):
Reaffirming the principles laid down in Willie Slaney, the Supreme Court reiterated that every error, omission, or irregularity in framing a charge does not lead to the invalidation of a trial unless it is shown that the accused was prejudiced in their defence due to such defect. The focus remains on substantial justice and whether the accused had a fair opportunity to defend themselves.