Our Indian legal system, which was built with bits and pieces from the world's entire major constitutions, has prevented wrongdoers from engaging in such arbitrary behaviour. Unlike in the United States and other countries, Indian law requires a criminal to be aware of the charge against him. By doing so, the trial proceedings can be completed in a timely and equitable manner.

The main objective of charging is to inform the accused about what he is being tried for and why. This was made abundantly clear in the case of V.C. Shukla v. State[1]. The case maintains that the primary purpose of framing a charge is to intimidate the accused about the nature of the accusation for which the accused is summoned to a trial1.

Section 2 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) defines a charge and states that it includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one". After the trial begins, the accused person is informed of the obliged to make against him as well as the provisions of the Code under which he will be tried by the Court. The accusations raised against the accused are thus referred to as 'Charges' in legal terms.

Joinder Of Charges

In the case of K. Satwant Singh v. State Of Punjab[2], that the sections on charge Joinder are not persuasive in nature. They only allow joint trial of charges in certain circumstances, and the courts may consider it in the interest of justice administration after thoroughly investigating the facts and circumstances of each case.

Provisions Regarding Framing Of Charges

According to Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the general principle regarding charges is that each offence of which a person has been accused shall be charged separately, and each such charge shall be tried separately and distinctly. This means that each offence must be treated as a distinct entity and must be tried separately.

Section 218(2) is an exception to Section 218(1). The provisions of Section 219, 220, 221 and Section 223, override the sections as mentioned under Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This means that Section 219- 223 talks about the Joinder of Charges.

Exception 1
Three similar offences committed within a year may be charged together: This section was added to avoid duplication of proceedings when the offences are the same.

It contains two situations:

• As per Section 219(1), Section 219 states that if a person is accused of committing three similar offences within a year, all of the offences may be charged and tried at the same time.
   
• Section 219(2) discusses offences of a similar nature that are also punishable with a similar degree of punishment.

Exception 2:
Offenses committed during a similar encounter and attempted jointly.

It consists of the following:

• If a person commits a series of acts that are so intrinsically linked to one another that they form a single transaction, those series of offences will be charged and prosecuted together. The Code doesn't define what the word "exchange" means.
   
• When there is a criminal breach of trust, an unjustified theft of property, or any of these offences combined with an accounting fraud offence. Many times, crimes like falsifying accounts or dishonestly appropriating property are committed in conjunction with crimes like criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property, the latter of which is committed to achieve the goals of the former. In these circumstances, Section 220(2) enables the Courts to jointly try such offences.
   
• If a single act is covered by multiple, distinct definitions of an offence, those various offences must be tried together in accordance with Section 220. (3). For instance, if a person X inadvertently strikes a person Y with a cane, X may be charged with and tried for those offences under Sections 352 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code separately, or they may be tried together and found guilty.
   
• If the acts that constitute an offence also create distinct offences when taken and tried separately or in groups, those offences must be tried as a single offence in a single trial. For instance, if A robs B and, in the process, willfully injures B, A may be separately charged with, and found guilty of, the offences listed under Sections 323, 392 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

Exception 3:
Section 221 addresses situations where there may be some uncertainty regarding the events and circumstances surround the commission of the crime. This section states that if the accused has committed a string of offences that make it unclear which set of facts should be proven, they may be charged with any or all of those offences or with alternative offences. In these situations, the accused is charged with one offence, but if it is proven during the evidence stage that he also committed another offence, he may be found guilty of that offence even though he was not charged with it.

Exception 4:
The group of people who can be tried jointly is covered in Section 223. This section authorises a joint trial of multiple defendants when certain conditions are met because there is a connection between the various offences committed. The different classes are not to be considered mutually exclusive and may be combined together as required.

The following types of individuals could be tried and charged jointly under this section:

• The accused parties who participated in the same crime during the exact same transaction.
  The persons who have committed a particular offence and those who have abetted the commission.
• The people who are protected by Section 219's scope.
• People who participated in a similar exchange and submitted different offences.

The people who have committed crimes such as robbery, coercion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation of property, as well as those who have obtained, held, assisted in the removal of, or concealed, property whose ownership is illegitimate or whose ownership is alleged to be unlawful.

The people who have been charged with violating Indian Penal Code, Sections 411 and 414, or with violating those Sections in relation to stolen property whose ownership has already been transferred by another crime.

The accused cannot request a joint trial if their case is not included in one of the Section 223 classes. The proviso to this Section limits the court's discretionary authority.

The rules from Sections 218 to 223 have been created with the benefit of the accused in mind. The various classes of sections need not be treated as mutually exclusive. The Courts have been given the authority to combine the provisions of more than two clauses. Additionally authorization of the joint trial of multiple parties using a combination of one clause and other?

Ranchhod Lal v. Territory of Madhya Pradesh[3], It was decided that the court would decide whether to use Sections 218 or Sections 219, 220, and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1973. This back-up option of joining charges has not been given to the one who has been denounced.

The Supreme Court responded to the inquiry regarding the misjoinder of charges and joint trial for unmistakable offences due to Union Of India v. Ajeet Singh[4]. In this case, the court ruled that the fundamental provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only serve as a fundamental principle.

The court has the authority to order a separate trial in cases where joining of charges or offenders is permitted

· The general rule in terms of charges is that each distinct offence must be charged separately and tried separately. However, Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 provide exceptions to this general rule. In other words, a separate trial is the rule, and a joint trial is the exception.

· The exceptions provisions are only enabling in nature, and it is up to the Courts to decide whether or not to apply them to a specific case. It was held in Ranchhod Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1248 that it is at the discretion of the court whether to apply Sections 219, 220, and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 218. The accused has not been given the option of joining charges.

Conviction for an uncharged offence when that wrongdoing is included in the charged offences

In summons cases, a formal charge need not be framed. It would be sufficient to simply inform the accused of the specific charges against him. The question of whether the joinder of charges provisions is applicable in such circumstances arises. The 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure does not specifically address this issue.

However, it has been proven through a number of precedents, such as in the case of Upendra Nath Biswas v. Emperor[5], Indramani v. Chanda Bewa[6] the summons case is also subject to the provisions governing the joining of cases.

Conclusion
The most crucial phase of the process of beginning of a trial in a criminal proceeding is the charge's framing. When the charges are being framed, the greatest care must be taken because an incorrect framing may lead to the forsaking of justice. As a result, one should avoid framing and joining charges improperly because doing so would undermine the fundamental foundation of a fair trial.

The designated authority must address the fact that a case appears to be present when framing the charges and should explain his justifications for disclosing the case record in hard copy.

This sections that deal with different types of trials only point out that the courts are now responsible for framing the charges. Before the judgment is stated, the court may change or add to any charge. Additionally, the rules governing the joining of charges do not strictly apply to judges. The appointed authorities must proceed cautiously and decide whether to combine the charges or pursue each charge separately based on the specifics of each case.

References:

• https://devgan.in/crpc/section/219/
• https://lawtimesjournal.in/charge/
• https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1974-02.pdf
• https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/form-of-charge-and-joinder-of-charge-under-crpc-an-analysis-15361.asp
• https://www.ejusticeindia.com/the-concept-of-joinder-of-charges-section-218-224/

End-Notes:

1. 1980 AIR 962, 1980 SCR (2) 380
2. 1960 AIR 266, 1960 SCR (2) 89
3. AIR 1965 SC 1248
4. (2013) 4 SCC 186.
5. ILR (1913) 41 CaL 694
6. 1956 Cri LJ 1218