What persons may be charged jointly
Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with what persons may be charged jointly. The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:- (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course same transaction ; The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:-
(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course same transaction ;
(b) person accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence ;
(c) person accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months;
(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction;
(e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first named persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last-named offence;
(f) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). or either of those sections in respect of
stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence;
(g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges:
Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the Magistrate may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he is satisfied that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together.
Section 223, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 246 What persons may be charged jointly Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Loop Telecom LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where co-accused in the same criminal transaction are charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as offences under the Indian Penal Code, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has valid jurisdiction under Section 4(3) of the PC Act read with Section 220 and Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to take cognizance of and try all accused jointly, including those charged solely with IPC offences. The Administrative Order of the High Court nominating a Special Judge and the Government Notification appointing such Special Judge are constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Article 233 of the Constitution and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The establishment of a Special Court to exclusively try cases arising from the same FIR and the same criminal transaction does not violate the Criminal Procedure Code or deprive the accused of valuable legal rights.
On this section: Permits persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction to be charged and tried together. Court heavily relied on this to establish that petitioners could be tried together with co-accused charged under PC Act despite being charged only under IPC.
-
Essar Teleholdings LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When offences are committed in one series of acts forming the same criminal transaction, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has the express authority under Section 4(3) of the PC Act to take cognizance of and try offences under the Indian Penal Code (such as Sections 420 and 120-B) against an accused, notwithstanding that the same offences would ordinarily be triable by a Magistrate, provided that co-accused in the same transaction are charged with offences specified in Section 3 of the PC Act. The application of Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits such consolidated trial of co-accused charged with different offences arising from the same transaction, and the splitting of such trials would be incongruous and impractical. The High Court's Administrative Order and the State's Notification appointing a Special Judge for the 2G Spectrum cases were constitutionally valid exercises of authority under Articles 233-234 and Section 194 of the CrPC respectively, and cannot be collaterally assailed as they were premised on the Supreme Court's valid directions under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution.
On this section: Permits persons accused of different offences committed in course of same transaction to be charged and tried together. Relied upon to support joint trial of petitioners with co-accused despite different charges.
-
Vikash Saraf vs Registrar General Delhi H. Ct.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused are charged in the same transaction with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, a Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of that Act has jurisdiction under Section 4(3) to try other co-accused charged only with Indian Penal Code offences (Sections 120-B and 420 IPC) relating to the same transaction. The application of Sections 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code permits consolidated trial of multiple accused charged with different offences arising from the same transaction. An Administrative Order passed by the High Court and a Notification issued by the State Government appointing a Special Judge to try all cases arising from the 2G Spectrum scam, including IPC offences, is constitutionally and legally valid as it falls within the statutory framework of the PC Act and Criminal Procedure Code and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution merely by affecting appeal rights when there is no threat to fair trial. Supreme Court orders directing establishment of a Special Court passed under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution are binding and cannot be indirectly assailed through collateral challenges to the Special Court's jurisdiction.
On this section: Permits persons accused of different offences committed in course of same transaction to be charged and tried together. Applied to justify joint trial of petitioners (charged under IPC) with co-accused charged under PC Act.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… There are changed circumstances, as P.W.39 has already been examined. It is further contended that the prosecution filed an application under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to club all split up cases with Spl.C.C.No.785/2018 filed against absconding accused and the same was allowed. Hence, trial may get delayed for another four years, and therefore, sought to allow the Appeal. 3. Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor filed …
-
… A supplementary charge sheet was filed against Petitioner No.2 on 31.01.2013 and the case was committed to the Court of Session. It was assigned to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge ("A.S.J.") who was also hearing the Sessions Case against Petitioner No.1. - 3. Petitioners' grievance is that Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the person accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction must be tried together. The Petitioner No.2 was arrested almost two years of the incident. Petitioner No.1 and 2 should be tried together for the same offence which is alleged to …
Questions about Section 223
What have the courts held on Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Loop Telecom LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court (01 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Permits persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction to be charged and tried together. Court heavily relied on this to establish that petitioners could be tried together with co-accused charged under PC Act despite being charged only under IPC. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 223, section 223 CRPC, section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Loop Telecom LTD vs Regr. Gen. Delhi High Court (01 Jul 2013).
What should I read with Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 219 (Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together), Indian Penal Code 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property), Indian Penal Code 414 (Assisting in concealment of stolen property), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 246 (What persons may be charged jointly), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 223, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.