Criminal Procedure Code · Updated to 1 May 2023 · Chapter XVIII · The Charge
156. Effect of errors
Feedback & supportNo error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars shall be regarded, at any stage of the case, as material unless the accused was in fact misled by that error or omission.
offence
“offence” means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force;
106
A is charged under section *242 of the Penal Code with “having been in possession of counterfeit coin, having known at the time when he became possessed of it that the coin was counterfeit” the word “fraudulently” being omitted in the charge. Unless it appears that A was in fact misled by this omission the error shall not be regarded as material.
A is charged with cheating B, and the manner in which he cheated B is not set out in the charge, or is set out incorrectly. A defends himself, calls witnesses, and gives his own account of the transaction. The Court may infer from this that the omission to set out the manner of the cheating is not material.
Court
“Court” means the High Court, a Sessions Court, or a Magistrate’s Court of any class, as the context may require;
A is charged with cheating B, and the manner in which he cheated B is not set out in the charge. There were many transactions between A and B, and A had no means of knowing to which of them the charge referred, and offered no defence. The Court may infer from these facts that the omission to set out the manner of the cheating was, in this case, a material error.
A is charged with the murder of John Smith on 6 June 1910. In fact the murdered person’s name was James Smith and the date of the murder was 5 June 1910. A was never charged with any murder but one, and had heard the inquiry before the Magistrate which referred exclusively to the case of James
inquiry
“inquiry” includes every inquiry conducted under this Code before a Magistrate;
Smith. The Court may infer from these facts that A was not misled, and that the error in the charge was immaterial.
A was charged with murdering James Smith on 5 June 1910, and John
Smith (who tried to arrest him for that murder) on 6 June 1910. When charged for the murder of James Smith he was tried for the murder of John Smith. The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses in the case of James Smith. The
Court may infer from this that A was misled and that the error was material.