Charge against accused

Purpose of the charge was to tell the accused precisely and concisely the nature of the offence for which he was charged

Rational for laying down the detailed procedure for framing the charge was that the accused should know the nature of the accusation so that he might give a proper reply and was not misled by the vagueness in the said accusation

Spectrum of charge should be such that all eventualities and exigencies till the conclusion of the trial could be made with the caution that no prejudice was caused to the accused.

Trial Court acquitted the accused persons but simultaneously convicted the appellant on the ground that he misused his official powers and lodged a false complaint/F.I.R.

Contentions of the appellant were that he was not allowed any opportunity of defence

Validity

No charge was framed against the appellant for lodging a false complaint and he was convicted without providing him any chance of defence

Section 367, Cr.P.C provided that a judgment should contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision

Section 367(2), Cr.P.C, provided that the judgment should specify the offence and the section of the Penal Code or other law under which the accused was convicted and the punishment to which he was sentenced-In the present case, impugned judgment neither mentioned the section of law under which the appellant was convicted nor any charge was framed against him

No statement of appellant was recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C

Impugned judgment was passed in a perfunctory and slipshod manner which was not only perverse but also perpetuated the failure of justice

Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment to the extent of the conviction of the appellant was set aside and he was acquitted.