A charge serves the purpose of notice or intimation to the accused drawn up according to specific language of law giving clear and unambiguous or precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of a trial. The object of a charge is to warn an accused person of the case he is to answer. It cannot be treated as if it was a part of ceremonial. Gainful reference for the purpose may be made on the case of V.C. Shukla Vs. State, reported in 1980 SCC (Cri.)
695. The Criminal Procedure Code gives ample power to the court to alter or amend a charge provided that the accused has not to face a charge for the new offence or is not prejudiced either by keeping him in dark about that charge or in not giving him a full opportunity to meet it andputting forward any defence open to him on the charge finally preferred against him.
In the instant case, a charge had already been framed showing the accused to have defalcated and embezzled an amount of Rs.5,24,610/-. However, after the completion of full accounting it transpired that the actual amount defalcated and embezzled was Rs.44,40,323/- and this actual amount of defalcation and embezzlement was sought to be incorporated in place of the original amount of Rs.5,24,610/- . Apparently, no altercation or modification in the charge was sought and merely the amount misappropriated and embezzled was sought to be rectified. Therefore, there was no new fact being introduced or charge being framed. The accused party had notice of the amount of embezzlement and defalcation that had been fastened upon him and mere change of the amount does not amount to an alteration and modification of the charge. So far as the question of marking the document is concerned, the reasonings assigned by the Revisional Court are cogent and are upheld.
Patna High Court - Orders
Rajnikant Rakesh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 6 February, 2009
Citation; 2009 CRLJ2149 Patna