READ OUT THE CHARGE SHEET.
IS IT
NECESSARY TO READ OUT THE CHARGE SHEET TO THE ACCUSED BY THE MAGISTRATE?
Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At
Law
Code of Criminal Procedure Act
182. (1)
Where the accused is brought or appears before the court the Magistrate shall
if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, frame a charge
against the accused.
(2) The
Magistrate shall read such charge to the accused and ask him if he has any
cause to show why he should not be convicted.
164 (6) The
charge shall when it is preferred, whether at the inquiry preliminary to
committal for trial or at the trial, be read to the accused in a language which
he understands.
DECIDED JUDGEMENTS
01. David
Perera v. The Attorney-General and Another [1997] 1 Sri L.R 390
Compliance with
sections 182(1) and (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Act is imperative. When
an amended plaint is filed, a fresh charge sheet should be framed and read out
to the accused. Failure to do so vitiates the conviction.
“On a perusal of
the record it would appear that the Magistrate has failed to frame the charges,
as he was required to do in terms of section 182(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure Act. The Magistrate appears to have adopted the “amended plaint” filed
on 12.5.93 as the “charge”. Thus he has failed to comply with the provisions of
section 182(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act.”
02. Abdul
Sameem v. The Bribery Commissioner, (1991) 1 Sri L.R. 76
(i) that there
was a failure to frame a charge by the Magistrate as required under section 182(1)
and read it to accused as contemplated under section 182(2).
(ii) that the
failure to frame a charge, as required under section 182(1) is a violation of a
fundamental principle of criminal procedure, and is not a defect curable under
section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act No. 15 of 1979.
"Furthermore
whilst appreciating the pressures on time and the large volume of work the
Magistrate's Courts are called upon to handle, it is nevertheless important,
that rights of an accused person are safeguarded and that he be brought to
trial according to accepted fundamental principles of criminal procedure."
03. Dingiri
Banda v. Attorney-General [1986] 2 Sri L.R 356
Charging,the
accused from the charge sheet would be in strict compliance with s. 182 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure Act. Failing to charge from the charge sheet but informing
the accused from the plaint that he had committed the offence of mischief under
s. 41 0 of the Penal Code may be allowed where no failure of justice is
occasioned and the accused has not been misled or prejudiced thereby.
04. Abubackerge
Jaleel Vs. Hon Attorney General - CA PHC 108/2010
“Once a report
is filed under Section 136 (1) (b) of the Code, the next step is to ascertain
under Section 182 of the Code as to whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused and in the event of the opinion being favourable
to the prosecution, the Magistrate shall frame a charge against the accused.
Once the charge is framed, the Magistrate he shall read it to the accused under
182 (2) and ask him if he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted.”
“Magistrates
usually do not frame charges themselves in each every case but accepts the
draft charge which is tendered by prosecuting party. Yet in law, it is the
charge framed by the Magistrate from the time it is accepted.”
05. Godage
and Others Vs. Officer-In-Charge, Police Station, Kahawatte [1992} 1 SriL.R 54
It is an
imperative duty of the Magistrate to frame a charge and read it out to the accused.
Failure to do so is fatal to the conviction.
06. Withanage
Gunawardena v. The Attorney General CA 22/2002 (CA Minutes of 12.11.2003)
Where her Ladyship
Justice Tilakawardane referred the case back to the original court for retrial
on the ground that the “charge had not been read to the Accused.
Comments
Post a Comment