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

Popular posts from this blog

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO GRANT BAIL.

-
Image
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO GRANT BAIL. Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law DECIDED JUDGEMENTS 01. ATTORNEY GENERAL VS EDIRIWEERA [2006] BLR PAGE 12 "In any event delay in listing of cases is not an exceptional circumstance as it is common to all cases." It is now settled law that an application for bail pending appeal can be allowed only upon establishment of exceptional circumstances. "Delay is always a relative term and the question to be considered is not whether there was mere explicable delay as when there is a backlog of cases, but whether there has been excessive or oppressive delay and this always depends on the facts and circumstances of the case"   02. RANIL CHARUK KUJATHUNGA V. AG CA (PHC) APN 134/2015 "The petitioner submits several grounds to consider bail. The Petitioner states that he is a married person with two school going children. The persons getting married and having children is not an exceptional ground. It is th
Read more

INFORM THE REASON TO BE ARRESTED.

-
Image
INFORM THE REASON TO BE ARRESTED Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law   ARTICLE 13(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION No person shall be arrested except according to procedure established by law. Any person arrested shall be informed of the reasons for his arrest.   CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 23. (1) In making an arrest the person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action and shall inform the person to be arrested of the nature of the charge or allegation upon which he is arrested. Explanation. - Keeping a person in confinement or restraint without formally arresting him or under the colourable pretension that an arrest has not been made when to all intents and purposes such person is in custody shall be deemed to be an arrest of such person; (2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him or attempts to evade the arrest, the person matting the arr
Read more

CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY.

-
Image
LEGAL PROVISIONS AND DECIDED JUDGEMENTS ON CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY Duncan Abeynayaka – LLB, Attorney At Law.   PENAL CODE PROVISIONS 386. Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 387. Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of that person decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offender at the time of such person's decease was employed by him as a clerk or servent, the imprisonment may extend to seven years. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 165 (2 ) When the accused is
Read more