Substance of accusation to be stated
Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with substance of accusation to be stated. When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. 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 Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried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.
When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or
has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.
Section 251, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 274 Substance of accusation to be stated Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Sunita Bhagat vs Sebi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act creates two classes of persons: (i) those who commenced collective investment activities prior to 25.1.1995 ('proviso category') who may continue until obtaining registration under the regulations; and (ii) those who did not ('non-proviso category') who are absolutely barred from commencing such activities until obtaining registration. The bar for the non-proviso category is self-executing and operative from 25.1.1995 regardless of when regulations are framed. However, criminal prosecution for regulatory non-compliance (such as failure to apply for registration under Regulation 5) requires that the accused was a director/officer of the company at the time the specific breach occurred. A director who resigned before the deadline for compliance cannot be prosecuted for breaches arising on or after the resignation date. The complaint must clearly disclose whether the accused is charged as a non-proviso category violator (commencing activity without authority) or merely as an existing operator who failed to comply with procedural regulations. Absence of such clarity, combined with the accused having exited before the breach date, renders prosecution unsustainable.
On this section: Requirement that particulars of offence be stated to accused. Court held that for non-proviso category violations, particulars must include the date when accused commenced the prohibited activity, not mere reference to statutory section.
-
Aveek Sarkar vs State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A publication or photograph depicting nudity or semi-nudity cannot be deemed obscene under Section 292 IPC merely because it shows nude or semi-nude figures. Obscenity must be determined by applying contemporary community standards, not the Hicklin test. The court must examine the photograph in the context of the message it seeks to convey and the background in which it appears. Only if the material has a tendency to excite lustful thoughts in the average person, judged by contemporary community standards, can it be considered obscene. If the material serves a higher social purpose such as protesting racism and promoting love across racial boundaries, and does not have inherent tendency to deprave or corrupt, it cannot be held obscene. The context, message, and purpose are integral to determining whether material is obscene.
On this section: Pertains to examination of accused persons. The Magistrate ordered accused to be examined under this section.
-
Kamlesh Aggarwal vs Narain Singh Dabbas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a consumer forum identifies procedural violations in taking penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the appropriate remedy is to remand the case to the forum below for fresh proceedings following the mandatory summary trial procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code, rather than setting aside the order entirely, thereby preserving the substantive rights of the consumer. Additionally, Code of Civil Procedure procedures (specifically Order XXI Rule 32) are applicable to execution proceedings before District Consumer Forums in the absence of express or implied exclusion, enabling specific performance of decrees for obtaining registration of property and other substantive relief.
On this section: Court directed District Forum to follow these provisions as Judicial Magistrate of First Class when taking penal action under Section 27 of Consumer Protection Act; necessary for constitutional compliance with natural justice and due process
-
Captain Am Karandikar vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Petitions challenging an FIR may be withdrawn with liberty to raise substantive defences regarding sanction validity, evidence sufficiency, and limitation before the Trial Magistrate at the stage of framing charges under Section 251 Cr.P.C., provided the respondent-State does not object to such withdrawal.
On this section: Framing of charges by Trial Magistrate; stage at which substantive defences regarding sanction, evidence, and limitation can be raised
-
State Sub Inspector of Police vs Thanki Srinivas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A voluntary and uncoerced admission of guilt by an accused person, when properly recorded after examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C and after ensuring the accused understands the nature of accusation, is sufficient basis for conviction under Section 252 Cr.P.C without the necessity of adducing oral or documentary evidence. In cases of negligent acts likely to spread dangerous disease during public health emergencies (such as COVID-19 pandemic), operating commercial establishments in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C quarantine orders constitutes an offence under Section 269 IPC, and conviction with appropriate punishment is warranted to protect public health and enforce compliance with emergency regulations.
On this section: Examination of accused. Court examined the accused under this section, explained the substance of accusation in Telugu, and recorded his guilty plea.
-
Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a corporation is an accused person in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and it appoints an authorized representative as permitted under Section 305 CrPC, the District Consumer Forum cannot insist on the personal appearance of the Managing Director or any other specific officer. The statutory requirement that the accused shall be examined is satisfied by the examination of the authorized representative. The District Forum is bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and cannot impose additional requirements beyond what the statute permits.
On this section: Examination of accused during inquiry. The Court noted that examination under Section 251 CrPC, when a corporation is the accused, should be of its authorized representative as per Section 305(3) CrPC.
-
Puvvada Venkata Krishna Murthy vs The State of A.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a cheque is issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and is dishonored due to insufficient funds, the issuer commits an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presentation of a cheque on multiple occasions, each resulting in dishonor, constitutes separate causes of action. The presumption under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to validate the fact of dishonor based on the bank's official cheque return memo, and technical errors in the date of the memo (such as a Sunday date) do not invalidate the entire case if the bank has issued an official note confirming dishonor. The absence of cross-examination on key facts (such as the signature on the cheque and promissory note, or the loan amount) and the failure of the accused to adduce defense evidence or testify in his own defense strengthen the case against the accused.
On this section: Examination of accused - procedure under which the accused was examined with reference to allegations in the complaint
-
Laxmeswar Thakur vs The State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application for cancellation of proceedings under Section 82/83 CrPC cannot be entertained when the factual basis for the application (payment of dues) is contradicted by verified bank records of the recipient.
On this section: Notice of accusation served to the accused.
-
Shri Subhash G Narvekar vs Mr Dharmendra Kumar Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant (under Sections 139 and 118) are mandatory and rebuttable. The accused must rebut these presumptions by preponderance of probability through cogent evidence. Mere allegations without supporting material, such as claiming blank cheques were issued for charity without proof of the charity or the complainant's charitable status, are insufficient to rebut the presumptions. The bank's cheque return memo creates a prima facie presumption of dishonour under Section 146, which is rebuttable only if the accused produces evidence of funds in the account. When the accused fails to discharge the burden of rebuttal, the court must find the accused guilty of the offence under Section 138.
On this section: Explanation of substance of accusation - Court explained the charges to the accused under this section.
-
KESHAV NATH vs STATE
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act takes a defence that the cheque was stolen or lost, the accused must establish this defence by cogent evidence and by demonstrating conduct consistent with that of a prudent person who would have immediately reported the theft/loss to police and his banker, sought return of the cheque, and taken appropriate legal action. Mere denial of liability or inconsistent statements regarding the defence are insufficient to rebut the mandatory statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused and cannot be discharged by bare explanation or reasonable probability; it must be supported by proof that the court either believes to exist or considers so probable that a prudent man would act upon the supposition that it exists.
On this section: Notice for commission of offence - Used to serve notice on the accused for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act
-
State vs Satish
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Without eyewitness testimony establishing the essential ingredients of rash and negligent driving, a person cannot be convicted under Section 279/304A IPC. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and this burden never shifts to the accused. When the prosecution's case is doubtful or lacks credible eyewitness evidence of the alleged rash and negligent driving, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, resulting in acquittal.
On this section: Framing of charge. The court framed a notice under this section for offences under Section 279/304A IPC on July 4, 2017.
-
Bhawani Singh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is that: (1) Section 352 CrPC operates only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offence tries the case. If a different magistrate is holding charge at the time of trial, Section 352 does not apply. (2) A magistrate acting in official public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 CrPC, and the Explanation to Section 479 specifically clarifies this. (3) The title given to a document does not determine its legal nature. If allegations are made to a magistrate with a view to taking action, it constitutes a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC regardless of the title. (4) A complaint filed under valid provisions of law (Section 180F of Indian Railways Act 1989) is not vitiated merely because the charge-sheet title incorrectly cites repealed provisions (Indian Railways Act 1890). (5) Section 195 CrPC bar does not apply to Section 224 IPC offence, hence defences available to co-accused under Section 195 are not available to accused charged under Section 224 IPC. (6) Prima facie evidence of commission of offence is sufficient to sustain cognizance and proceed with prosecution.
On this section: Revisional court's power to examine legality of cognizance. Court held that revisional court should examine legality of cognizance even if not specifically assailed.
-
Dinesh vs State of Rajasthan through P P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prima facie evidence of criminal offenses exists and the substance of allegations constitutes a valid complaint under law, procedural defects in the form or title of documents do not vitiate the cognizance or proceedings. The bar under Section 352 Criminal Procedure Code applies only when the same magistrate who witnessed the offense tries the case; if a different magistrate conducts the trial, the bar does not apply. A magistrate acting in his public capacity is not deemed personally interested under Section 479 Criminal Procedure Code merely by reason of being involved in a matter in that capacity. The availability of statutory protections under Section 195 and 340 Criminal Procedure Code depends on the specific offense charged, and these protections do not extend to offenses not enumerated in Section 195.
On this section: Revisional court's power to examine legality; court held revisional court should have examined legality of cognizance
-
State Sub Inspector of Police vs Rregulabanda Manikanta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who negligently keeps a commercial establishment open in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C quarantine orders during a COVID-19 pandemic, thereby creating a risk of spreading dangerous disease infection to the public, commits an offence under Section 269 IPC. Upon voluntary admission of guilt by such person, conviction is warranted, and a fine proportionate to the nature of the offence is an appropriate punishment.
On this section: Examination of the accused. The accused was examined under this section and explained the substance of accusation in Telugu, to which he pleaded guilty.
-
S.I of police, Mandapeta Rural P.s vs Sanagala Srinu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused voluntarily admits guilt to charges of violating government orders and causing danger to human life, and presents mitigating circumstances such as being the sole breadwinner of dependent family members, the court may impose lenient sentences in the form of fines with imprisonment only in default, while declining to invoke the Probation of Offenders Act if the circumstances do not warrant full probation.
On this section: Examination of accused. Used to examine the accused regarding the accusations and record his plea of guilty.
-
Directorate of Revenue Intelli vs Vivek Nagpal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a respondent has successfully challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings through a revision petition and the trial court has subsequently cancelled all further proceedings and discharged the surety, a subsequent order of the trial court granting a final opportunity for prosecution evidence becomes infructuous and should be quashed, as the proceedings have been brought to a close by the earlier order of the High Court.
On this section: Procedure for framing of notices - mentioned in context of earlier revision petition filed by respondent
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.
-
… The cognizance on the complaint under Section 138 of N.I Act filed by the respondent, was taken by the learned trial court/M.M. by its Order dated 06.09.2023 and the petitioner/accused was summoned. 14. The petitioner on being served with the summons, appeared before the trial court on 21.11.2023. Notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as "Cr.PC, 1973") was framed on 21.11.2023 wherein the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 15. The Petitoner has contended that the complainant has been partly cross-examined by the petitioner on 07.02.2024 wherein he has reaffirmed that he had …
Questions about Section 251
What have the courts held on Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Sunita Bhagat vs Sebi (15 Jul 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Requirement that particulars of offence be stated to accused. Court held that for non-proviso category violations, particulars must include the date when accused commenced the prohibited activity, not mere reference to statutory section. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 251 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 251, section 251 CRPC, section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. People searching for it also type crpc 251 in bnss and crpc 251 to 259. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sunita Bhagat vs Sebi (15 Jul 2016).
What should I read with Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 274 (Substance of accusation to be stated), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 251, 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.