Section 240 CrPC: Framing of charge

Chapter XIX

framing of charge, grave suspicion, Magistrate's discretion, plea of guilty, prima facie case, trial initiation, warrant case

New Law Update (2024)

Section 227 BNSS

TRIAL COURT

Magistrate's Court

Punishment

Procedural – Trial / Charge

Cognizable?

Bailable?

Compoundable?

Bare Act Text

(1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

Important Sub-Sections Explained

Section 240(1) CrPC

This sub-section is crucial as it sets out the conditions under which a Magistrate frames a formal charge against an accused, specifically requiring an opinion that there is a ‘ground for presuming’ an offence has been committed which the Magistrate can try and punish.

Section 240(2) CrPC

This sub-section ensures due process by mandating that once framed, the charge must be read and explained to the accused, who is then given the opportunity to either plead guilty or demand a full trial.

Landmark Judgements

Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2018):

This Supreme Court case reaffirmed that at the stage of framing charges, the trial court is not to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence. Instead, it must assess if there is sufficient ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence, indicating a prima facie case for proceeding with the trial.

P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2010):

The Supreme Court clarified the standard for framing charges, stating that a “ground for presuming” the commission of an offence is sufficient. It is not necessary for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt at this preliminary stage, but rather to show “grave suspicion” warranting a trial.

Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979):

This landmark judgment laid down guiding principles for the framing of charges, emphasizing that the court should not act as a mere post office or as a recording machine. It must apply its mind to the material on record to determine if there is a strong suspicion or a reasonable basis to proceed against the accused.

Chapter XIX