Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XVIII: Trial Before A Court of Session
Section 233: Entering upon defence
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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) Where the accused is not acquitted under section 232, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. 1. Subs. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 22, for certain words (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).
(2) If the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it with the record.
(3) If the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
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 233
-
Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Whether in the attending facts and circumstances, the High Court could have accepted a submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, to conduct narco-analysis test of all the accused persons (including the appellant)…
-
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…
-
Paranagouda and Another v. The State of
Whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with s. 34 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; whether the conviction of the…
- Somasundaram @ Somu v. The State Rep. by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
- Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of U.P.