Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge
Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge. No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirma 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 Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried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.
(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may-
(a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed and that the trial be recommended from the point immediately after the framing of the charge ;
(b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit:
Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction.
Section 464, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 510 Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
-
Dalbir Singh vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with one offense (e.g., Section 302 IPC) and the evidence establishes a different offense (e.g., Section 306 IPC) for which no formal charge was framed, conviction under the latter offense is permissible under Section 464 Criminal Procedure Code if: (1) the accused had adequate notice of the allegations constituting that offense through cross-examination of witnesses and his examination under Section 313; (2) the main facts sought to be established were explained to him clearly; (3) he was given a fair and full opportunity to defend himself against those allegations; and (4) no substantial prejudice was caused to the accused. The determination of prejudice must employ a broad vision focusing on substance rather than technicalities, with the ultimate inquiry being whether the accused received a fair trial.
On this section: Effect of omission, absence, or error in charge; the foundational principle applied by the court that errors or irregularities in charge framing do not vitiate conviction unless a failure of justice has occurred, requiring examination of substantive prejudice to the accused.
-
Rohtas vs The State of Haryana Home Department Home Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged under Sections 148 and 149 IPC as part of an unlawful assembly, but some members of the assembly are acquitted during trial such that the number falls below five, the conviction under Sections 148 and 149 cannot be sustained. However, the accused can be individually convicted under Section 307 IPC (or other applicable provisions) if the evidence establishes that his individual act caused the injury or death, provided that: (1) the facts to be proved and evidence to be adduced would be substantially the same as under the group charge; (2) the accused was expressly confronted with his specific role in the offence; and (3) no prejudice is caused to the accused by the charge alteration. Additionally, the credibility of eyewitness testimony from closely related family members (such as the victim's brother) can be relied upon in violent crime cases if the testimony is consistent, detailed, corroborated by medical evidence, and the gravity of injuries makes false implication inconceivable.
On this section: Improper framing of charge. Court held that improper or non-framing of charge by itself is not a ground for acquittal; failure of justice must be shown.
-
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with dacoity-with-murder under Section 396 IPC, the ingredient of murder defined under Section 300 IPC is expressly incorporated into Section 396 by specific statutory language. Therefore, if the evidence establishes that the accused committed murder but does not establish the dacoity component, the accused can be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC without a specific charge for Section 302, provided: (a) the accused had notice that murder was an allegation against him through the Section 396 charge and Section 313 examination where facts were put to him; (b) he had full opportunity to defend himself; (c) no prejudice resulted to his right to fair trial, presumption of innocence, or the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (d) the ingredients of murder under Section 300 IPC are satisfied by the evidence. The principle of cognate offences permits such conviction when the graver offence (dacoity-with-murder) incorporates the essential elements of the lesser offence (murder) by express statutory language, and the accused suffered no failure of justice.
On this section: Appellate court's power to convict for lesser offence if graver offence not proved. Applied to justify conversion from Section 396 to Section 302 conviction
-
Thongam Tarun Singh vs The State of Manipur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where evidence clearly establishes that a woman was subjected to sexual intercourse by more than one person acting in furtherance of common intention, conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for gang rape can be upheld even if the charge sheet did not specifically frame charges under that subsection, provided no serious prejudice has been caused to the accused. Additionally, courts possess discretion under the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC (prior to 2013 Amendment) to impose sentence less than the statutory minimum of 10 years if adequate and special reasons exist, such as the accused's youth, absence of criminal antecedents, good post-conviction conduct, and socio-economic background.
On this section: Validity of conviction despite defective charge; court held that no finding, sentence or order shall be deemed invalid merely on ground that no charge was framed unless failure of justice occasioned
-
Sanichar Sahni vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person can be convicted of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC even if co-accused are not charged under the same section, provided: (a) there is credible evidence proving the accused conspired with others to commit an illegal act; (b) the accused was given fair notice and opportunity to defend against the conspiracy charge; (c) no actual prejudice resulting in failure of justice has been caused to the accused by any defect in charge framing; and (d) the conviction is supported by evidence led at trial. Defects in charge framing are not fatal to conviction unless the accused establishes real prejudice and demonstrates he did not receive a fair trial or understand the case against him.
On this section: Provides that no finding, sentence or order shall be invalid merely due to defective charge framing unless failure of justice has occurred. Central to the Court's reasoning.
-
Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel vs Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an unlawful assembly is alleged in a criminal trial resulting in death or injury to multiple persons: (1) Charges must be framed distinctly and specifically for each victim and for each accused, particularly distinguishing which accused is alleged to have caused death of which victim and on what basis (direct liability or vicarious liability under Section 149); (2) The existence of an unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 IPC (assembly of 5+ persons with common object to commit offence) must be established as foundational to any conviction under Sections 143, 146, 148, or 149; (3) The common object of the assembly must be inferred from the circumstances of gathering, time, place, and conduct as a group - not from individual overt acts alone; (4) The mere presence of an accused in an unlawful assembly is sufficient for vicarious liability under Section 149 for offences committed by other members if he had knowledge that such offence was likely to be committed; (5) Defective charge framing that fails to communicate to the accused with precision the nature of their alleged liability violates Article 21 of the Constitution and constitutes failure of justice warranting appellate intervention; (6) When, after substantial passage of time (such as 26 years), procedural defects and evidentiary degradation make fresh trial impracticable, public law damages awarded to victims by the State may be an appropriate remedy for state's failure in maintaining law and order.
On this section: Effect of omission to frame, absence of, or error in charge; conviction not deemed invalid unless failure of justice has been occasioned thereby
-
Adi Malik vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A magistrate cannot record a plea of guilt and convict an accused under Section 241 Cr.P.C. without first complying with the mandatory procedural requirements of Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C., which require the magistrate to consider the police report and material and form an opinion that charges should be framed. Failure to comply with these provisions, particularly when coupled with the absence of legal representation for the accused, constitutes a failure of justice that cannot be cured under Section 464 Cr.P.C., and necessitates quashing of the conviction and remittal for fresh proceedings.
On this section: Provision that no finding, sentence or order shall be invalid merely on ground that no charge was framed unless failure of justice has been occasioned - applied to find that failure of justice occurred here
-
Shahid Riza @ Raju vs State (NCT Of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused can be convicted under a section different from the one charged if: (1) The facts alleged in the charge support the conviction under the different section; (2) The accused had a fair trial and was fully aware of the facts and allegations against him; (3) The accused was given full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and defend himself; (4) No prejudice or miscarriage of justice is occasioned by the charge framing irregularity. In cases of acid attack causing grievous burn injuries without intention to cause death, conviction should be under Section 326 IPC (causing grievous hurt by corrosive substance) rather than Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder), even if charged under Section 307, provided the above conditions are satisfied.
On this section: Finding not invalid due to absence of charge or error in charge unless failure of justice occasioned. Court held this section protected conviction despite charge being under Section 307 and conviction under Section 326.
-
State vs Lalit Narain
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A reference under Section 432 Criminal Procedure Code can only be made when a case involves a question as to the validity of an Act or Ordinance, the determination of which is necessary for disposal of the case, and the court must be of opinion that such Act is invalid or inoperative but has not been so declared by the High Court or Supreme Court. The mere fact that an accused is mentally unfit to stand trial, lacks family support, or that care infrastructure is inadequate does not constitute grounds for reference under Section 432 CrPC. Instead, such situations must be dealt with under the comprehensive procedure provided in Sections 464-475 CrPC, which specifically address the trial of persons of unsound mind. Trial courts cannot invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 561-A CrPC or ask the High Court to exercise such powers; such powers are inherent to the High Court itself.
On this section: Provides that whenever a Magistrate has reason to believe an accused is incapable of making defense due to unsoundness of mind, an enquiry must be held. The accused must be examined by a Civil Surgeon or Medical Officer. Court emphasized this is the proper procedure to follow.
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.
-
… Though a contention was raised by the learned counsel for Accused NO.8 that no charge under Section 307 of IPC was framed against Accused No.8 and in the absence of the same, the impugned judgment of conviction against Accused No.8 cannot be sustained, the same cannot be accepted. In view of the provisions of Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, absence of charge would vitiate the conviction only if it has caused prejudice to the accused and has infact been occasioned thereby. In the case of Willie (William) Shaney –vs- State of M.P, reported in AIR 1956 SC 116, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained …
Questions about Section 464
What have the courts held on Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Dalbir Singh vs State of U. P (08 Apr 2004) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Effect of omission, absence, or error in charge; the foundational principle applied by the court that errors or irregularities in charge framing do not vitiate conviction unless a failure of justice has occurred, requiring examination of substantive prejudice to the accused. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2020.
How do I find court cases under Section 464 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 464, section 464 CRPC, section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. People searching for it also type 464 crpc in bnss and 464 crpc judgement. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Dalbir Singh vs State of U. P (08 Apr 2004).
What should I read with Section 464 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 510 (Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 464 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 464, 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.