Chapter XVII
Section 212 CrPC: Particulars as to time, place and person
New Law Update (2024)
Section 221 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged.
(2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 219; Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 212(1)
This sub-section mandates that every charge must contain specific details about the time, place, and parties involved in the alleged offence, ensuring the accused receives adequate notice of the accusations against them.
Section 212(2)
For offences like criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation, this sub-section permits the charge to specify only the gross sum or property and a date range (not exceeding one year), simplifying the charge while still providing sufficient information.
Landmark Judgements
Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P. (1955):
This landmark Supreme Court judgment clarified that defects in framing a charge are not fatal unless they have caused actual prejudice to the accused, emphasizing that the primary purpose of a charge is to provide clear notice of the allegations.
State of U.P. v. Harihar Bakhsh Singh (1983):
Reiterating principles from earlier judgments, the Supreme Court held that while full particulars are crucial for an accused to understand the case against them, technical defects in a charge would not vitiate the trial unless a failure of justice or prejudice is demonstrably caused.