Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XVIII: Trial Before A Court of Session
Section 228: Framing of charge
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which—
(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, [or any other Judicial Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, or, as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, on such date as he deems fit, and thereupon such Magistrate] shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report;
(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 228
-
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors.
Issue arose whether an offence u/s.8(c) of the NDPS Act could be said to have been made out when an accused “deals with” psychotropic substances mentioned in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not figuring in Schedule I…
-
Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due…
-
State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the application for discharge filed by the accus ed; and as such whether the order of the sanctioning authority is liable to be set aside and consequently, the…
- Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) v. Hussain
- Chandi Puliya v. The State of West Bengal
- Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari & Anr.
- Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey & Ors.
- The State by S.P. Through the Spe CBI v. Uttamchand Bohra
- State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors.
- Mani Pushpak Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
- Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr.
- Tarun Jit Tejpal v. The State of Goa & Anr.
- Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency
- Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State Through the Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi
- Public Interest Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
- Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.V. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (Nct) of Delhi & Anr.
- State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu
- Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- State of Kerala and Others v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others
- Jogendra Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar &Anr.
- Branch C.1.0., Tirunelveli Range, Tamilnadu v. Mariyaantonvijay