Challenging Improper Framing of Charges or Irregular Trial: A Legal Guide

Introduction

The process of criminal proceedings involves several stages, including the framing of charges and conducting trials. However, there may be instances where the charges are not framed correctly, or irregularities occur during the trial. In such cases, individuals have the legal right to challenge these issues. This blog post provides insights into how one can challenge improper framing of charges or irregular trials, offering guidance on the necessary steps and legal considerations.

Parties to the Application

In such cases, the accused or the convict becomes the applicant, while the state, along with the complainant in private prosecutions, becomes the respondents.

Jurisdiction of Courts

• Concurrent Jurisdiction: Both the Sessions Court and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction to address such matters. However, the Sessions Court must be approached first. If the applicant does not succeed at the Sessions Court, they cannot file a second revision. Alternative legal remedies like an Application under Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973, or invoking writ jurisdiction or Article 227 jurisdiction of the High Court can be explored.
• Local Jurisdiction: The Sessions Court can exercise revisional jurisdiction only if the Magistrates’ Court is within its local jurisdiction.
• High Court’s Jurisdiction: For the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction, the Magistrates’ Court must be within the state over which the High Court holds jurisdiction.

Material Facts to be Pleaded

When filing such an application, it is crucial to include specific facts, such as:

• Showing that charges were not formally framed for an offense, resulting in a finding, sentence, or order by a competent court against the applicant, causing serious prejudice.
• Demonstrating errors, omissions, or irregularities in the framing of charges, leading to a finding, sentence, or order against the applicant, resulting in prejudice.
• Indicating instances of misjoinder of charges for various offenses, leading to a finding, sentence, or order against the applicant, and the resultant prejudice.
• Pointing out errors, omissions, or irregularities in various proceedings during the trial or any inquiry, as well as any errors in the sanction for prosecution, resulting in a failure of justice.
• Arguing that no valid charge could be framed against the applicant based on the case’s facts and established evidence.

Limitation Period

The limitation period for filing such an application is 90 days from the date of the impugned order. The time spent obtaining a certified copy of the order is deducted from this period. If there is a delay in approaching the court, a separate condonation application can be filed alongside the revision application, explaining the reasons for the delay.

Court Fee

The court fee varies from state to state. In Maharashtra, it is calculated based on the number of pages of documents attached to the revision application.

Compliance to Conditions, if Any

If applicable, ensure that there are no express legal bars or specific provisions preventing the institution and continuation of the proceedings. Explore any alternative legal remedies provided by the law.

Verification Clause

The verification clause is a critical aspect of any legal application. It requires parties to specify which facts are true based on their own knowledge and which are based on information, belief, or legal advice. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in adverse consequences, including perjury or contempt of court charges.

In summary, challenging improper framing of charges or irregular trials is a legal right that individuals can exercise. To do so effectively, it’s crucial to follow the proper legal procedures, provide necessary factual details, and ensure compliance with verification requirements.

Note: This information is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice.