FRAMING OF CHARGE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE UNDER THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
Abstract
Framing of charge is a decisive judicial function that determines whether an accused should be subjected to the rigours of a criminal trial. While the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the jurisprudential foundations governing framing of charge remain substantially intact. This article analyses the statutory framework under BNSS, examines the legal standard applicable at the charge stage, evaluates its effects on trial rights, and critically discusses the grounds of defence and discharge. It further maps BNSS provisions with authoritative Supreme Court precedents evolved under the CrPC, demonstrating doctrinal continuity with procedural reform.
1. Introduction
Framing of charge marks the formal transition from investigation to trial and constitutes one of the most significant pre-trial judicial acts in criminal procedure. At this stage, the Court determines whether the prosecution material discloses sufficient grounds for presuming the commission of an offence by the accused. Although the determination is tentative, the consequences are substantial, as the accused is compelled to undergo trial and face potential deprivation of liberty.
The introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, while modernising procedure and introducing timelines, has consciously preserved the core principles evolved through decades of judicial interpretation under the CrPC. The jurisprudence on framing of charge thus remains a blend of legislative text and judicial exposition.
2. Statutory Framework under BNSS, 2023
2.1 Governing Provisions
The procedure relating to framing of charge is contained in:
- Sections 251–254 BNSS (Sessions cases),
- Sections 261–262 BNSS (Warrant cases on police report),
- Sections 268–269 BNSS (Warrant cases otherwise than on police report).
These provisions substantially correspond to Sections 227–228, 239–240, and 245–246 of the CrPC, respectively.
2.2 Contents and Particulars of Charge
Under Section 234 BNSS (corresponding to Section 211 CrPC), every charge must state:
1. The specific offence alleged;
2. The law and section allegedly violated;
3. The charge must be in the language of the Court.
Further, Section 235 BNSS (Section 212 CrPC) mandates inclusion of particulars such as time, place, and the person against whom the offence was committed, insofar as such particulars are necessary to give the accused clear notice of the accusation.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the object of a charge is not technical precision but fair notice to the accused.¹
3. Standard of Judicial Scrutiny at the Stage of Framing Charge
3.1 Prima Facie Test
At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is required only to assess whether the material on record discloses:
- A prima facie case, or
- Sufficient ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence.
The expression “presume” does not imply a presumption of guilt but merely the existence of grounds to proceed.²
3.2 Prohibition on Roving Inquiry
The Court is expressly prohibited from conducting a roving inquiry into the merits of the case or weighing evidence as if conducting a trial. The prosecution material is to be accepted at face value, without testing its probative strength.³
3.3 Mapping BNSS with CrPC Jurisprudence
Although BNSS is a new enactment, courts continue to rely on CrPC precedents, as the statutory language and purpose remain materially identical.
| BNSS Provision | CrPC Equivalent | Key Judicial Authority |
| Section 251 BNSS | Section 228 CrPC | State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh⁴ |
| Section 227 BNSS | Section 227 CrPC | Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal⁵ |
| Section 234 BNSS | Section 211 CrPC | V.C. Shukla v. State⁶ |
| Section 216-equivalent BNSS | Section 216 CrPC | CBI v. Karimullah Osan Khan⁷ |
4. Timelines and Procedural Discipline under BNSS
A significant reform under BNSS is the introduction of timelines to curb systemic delays.
Section 251(1)(b) BNSS stipulates that in Sessions-triable cases, charges should ordinarily be framed within 60 days from the date of first hearing.
In 2025, the Supreme Court expressed concern over prolonged pendency at the charge-framing stage and underscored the need for strict adherence to statutory timelines, observing that delays at this stage undermine both the rights of the accused and public confidence in the justice system.⁸
5. Legal Effects of Framing of Charge
5.1 Commencement of Trial
Framing of charge signifies the formal commencement of trial. From this stage onward, the prosecution acquires the right to lead evidence, and the accused is placed under the obligation to face trial.
5.2 Crystallisation of Issues
The charge delineates the scope of the trial and confines the evidence to the allegations framed therein. Any evidence beyond the charge is ordinarily irrelevant unless the charge is altered in accordance with law.⁹
5.3 Plea of the Accused and Plea Bargaining
Upon framing of charge, the accused is required to plead guilty or not guilty. Under BNSS, an application for plea bargaining must be made within 30 days from framing of charge, reflecting the legislative emphasis on early resolution.
5.4 No Casual Dropping of Charge
Once framed, a charge cannot be simply deleted. It must culminate in either acquittal or conviction, subject to permissible alteration or addition under law.¹⁰
6. Grounds of Defence and Discharge
6.1 Right to Discharge
Prior to framing of charge, the accused may seek discharge under Section 227 BNSS or Section 239 BNSS, as applicable, if the allegations are groundless.
6.2 Grounds for Discharge
Discharge is warranted where:
- The essential ingredients of the alleged offence are absent;
- The allegations, even if accepted in entirety, do not constitute an offence;
- The prosecution case is inherently improbable or legally barred.¹¹
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460
6.3 Defence Material at Charge Stage
As a general rule, the accused cannot adduce defence evidence at the charge stage. However, courts may consider documents of unimpeachable character that are either admitted by the prosecution or form part of the prosecution record.¹²
6.4 Sanction and Legal Bars
The legal position regarding the importance of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption is thus much too clear to admit equivocation. The statute forbids taking of cognizance by the Court against a public servant except with the previous sanction of an authority competent to grant such sanction in terms of clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section 19(1). The question regarding validity of such sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The competence of the court trying the accused so much depends upon the existence of a valid sanction. In case the sanction is found to be invalid the court can discharge the accused relegating the parties to a stage where the competent authority may grant a fresh sanction for prosecution in accordance with law. If the trial Court proceeds, despite the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution.
Absence of mandatory sanction (e.g., under Section 197 CrPC-equivalent BNSS provisions) constitutes a valid ground for discharge or quashing of charge. Similarly, proceedings barred by limitation or statutory immunity cannot proceed to trial.¹³
6.5 Failure of Justice Doctrine
Errors or omissions in framing of charge are curable unless they result in prejudice or a “failure of justice.” The accused must demonstrate actual prejudice caused by such defect.¹⁴
7. Requirement of Reasoned Orders
Courts are required to pass reasoned orders while framing charges to reflect application of mind. However, the order need not contain a detailed evaluation of evidence or resemble a judgment after trial.¹⁵
8. Conclusion
The law relating to framing of charge under BNSS, 2023 represents continuity rather than rupture with the CrPC regime. While procedural timelines and structural reforms seek to enhance efficiency, the substantive judicial principles remain anchored in established precedent. Framing of charge continues to operate as a vital safeguard—ensuring that only cases disclosing a prima facie offence proceed to trial, while preventing abuse of the criminal process.
For the defence, this stage remains a critical opportunity to challenge legally untenable prosecutions; for the prosecution, it marks the threshold of trial responsibility. A balanced and reasoned approach at this stage is indispensable for a fair and effective criminal justice system.
Footnotes
1. V.C. Shukla v. State, 1980 Supp SCC 92.
2. State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 39.
3. Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368.
4. (1977) 4 SCC 39.
5. (1979) 3 SCC 4.
6. 1980 Supp SCC 92.
7. (2014) 11 SCC 538.
8. Supreme Court observations on procedural delays, Criminal Appeals (2025).
9. Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116.
10. CBI v. Karimullah Osan Khan, (2014) 11 SCC 538.
11. Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460.
12. State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.
13. Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 14 SCC 186.
14. K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, (2003) 1 SCC 217.
15. Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4.
