Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XIX: Trial of Warrant-Cases by Magistrates · A.–Cases instituted on a police report
Section 240: 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The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he 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 240
-
Visakhapatnam v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and Others
Whether the two letters could have been looked at or relied upon by the Special Court for exercising its jurisdiction u/s.239, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
-
Anti Corruption Chennai City-I Department v. G. Easwaran
The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent u/s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income while…
-
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…
-
Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. v. The State of Uttar
Whether the order passed by the High Court refusing to discharge the accused in a criminal case and quashi ng an FIR calls for interference.
- State Through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R. Soundirarasu Etc.
- Mani Pushpak Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
- Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Anr.
- State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta
- Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.V. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Jogendra Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar &Anr.
- Manoj Narula v. Union of India
- Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
- Ashish Chadha v. Smt. Asha Kumari & Anr.
- Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan @ J.M. John Paul & Anr.
- Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors.
- Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- State of Orissa v. Devendra Nath Padhi
- State of Delhi v. Gyan Devi and Ors.