CrPC Section 223 — What persons may be charged jointly

CHAPTER XVII THE CHARGE

General

Summary

Clause (a) allows people accused of the same offence, committed as part of the same transaction, to be charged and tried together.

Clause (b) allows a person accused of an offence to be charged and tried together with people accused of abetting or attempting to commit that offence.

Clause (c) allows people to be charged and tried together when they are accused of jointly committing more than one offence of the same kind, as defined in section 219, within a period of twelve months.

Clause (d) allows people accused of different offences committed as part of the same transaction to be charged and tried together.

Clause (e) allows people accused of an offence involving theft, extortion, cheating or criminal misappropriation to be charged and tried together with people accused of receiving or keeping property, or helping to dispose of or conceal it, when the property is alleged to have been transferred through the first group’s offence. It also covers people accused of abetting or attempting those receiving, keeping, disposal or concealment offences.

Clause (f) allows people accused under section 411 or section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, or both, to be charged and tried together when the stolen property involved was transferred through one offence.

Clause (g) allows people accused of an offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin to be charged and tried together with people accused of another offence under that Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetting or attempting such an offence. The provisions in the earlier part of this Chapter apply to these charges so far as they can.

The proviso allows a Magistrate or Court of Session to try together people charged with separate offences even if they do not fall within any of the categories above. The people must request this in a written application, and the Magistrate or Court must be satisfied that they would not be prejudicially affected and that a joint trial is expedient.

Official Text

The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:—

(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;

(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence;

(c) persons 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 (45 of 1860) 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 1[Magistrate or Court of Session] may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and 2[if he or it is satisfied] that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together.

Sections referred to

Referred to by

Related Judgments

  • Patade vs . State of Chhattisgarh and Others — Bombay High Court (Mumbai Principal Seat) (2017)
  • Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni and ors vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr — Bombay High Court (Mumbai Principal Seat) (2019)
  • ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Supreme Court of India (2015)
  • LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADAV vs STATE THROUGH C.B.I. (A.H.D.) RANCHI, JHARKHAND — Supreme Court of India (2003)
  • ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. vs REGISTRAR GENERAL, DELHI HIGH COURT & ORS — Supreme Court of India (2013)
  • NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR — Supreme Court of India (2024)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

  • BNSS §246 — What persons may be charged jointly