The omission to frame a charge, the absence of a charge, or an error in the charge itself cannot vitiate the trial. The apex court, in State v. Thakkidiram (AIR 1998 SC 2702), explained the underlying principle embodied in subsection (1) of section 464.

Subsection (1) of section 464 of the CrPC (1973) expressly provides that no finding, sentence, or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or due to any error, omission, or irregularities in the charge, including any misjoinder of charges. However, if, in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation, or revision, a failure of justice has indeed occurred, then such a finding, sentence, or order may be considered invalid.

Section 465 of the code is also relevant for our purpose. It lays down that no finding, sentence, or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or modified by a court of appeal, confirmation, or revision solely due to any error, omission, or irregularities in the proceedings unless, in the opinion of the court, a failure of justice has indeed occurred.

Furthermore, section 465 emphasizes that in determining whether any error, omission, or irregularities in any proceeding under this Code has occasioned a failure of justice, the courts should consider whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.

Not framing a charge would not vitiate the conviction if no prejudice is caused to the accused. The trial should be fair to the accused, fair to the State, and fair to the vast mass of people for whose protection penal laws are made and administered. The Criminal Procedure Code is a procedural law designed to further the ends of justice, rather than frustrate them through the introduction of endless technicalities.

Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073