Chapter XVII
Section 220 CrPC: Trial for more than one offence
New Law Update (2024)
Section 250 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Trial / Charge
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in Sub-Section (2) of section 212 or in Sub-Section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.
(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, or such acts.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 220(1)
This subsection allows a person to be tried for multiple offences in a single trial if these offences were committed by the same person as part of a continuous series of acts forming one integrated transaction. It streamlines the judicial process by avoiding separate trials for closely related crimes.
Section 220(2)
This provision specifically permits the joint trial of a person accused of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation along with offences of falsification of accounts, provided the latter were committed to facilitate or conceal the former. This is particularly useful in cases involving financial irregularities.
Landmark Judgements
State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao (1998):
The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of ‘same transaction’ under Section 220 CrPC, holding that while proximity of time and place are relevant, the continuity of action, common purpose or design, and overall cohesion of events are crucial in determining whether multiple acts form part of the same transaction.
Asghar Khan v. State of Maharashtra (1996):
This judgement emphasized the necessity of a clear nexus and continuity between multiple offences committed by the same person for their joint trial under Section 220 CrPC, ensuring that the accused is not prejudiced by the clubbing of unrelated charges.