GOPAL KRISHNA PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS application under Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, "the Code") is disposed of at the stage of admission on consent of the parties and after hearing arguments at length.

(3.) AFTER hearing a lucid argument from Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the provision in Chapter XVII of the Code, this Court finds that petitioner is making a storm in a cup of tea in view of the provision in Section 215 of the Code which provides that no error or omission in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge shall be regarded at any stage of the trial of be material unless the accused is misled by such error or Commission (omission ?) and if that occasions in failure of justice. Provision in Section 216 of the Code says that a charge can be altered at any stage when the trial court finds it necessary. Section 217 provides the consequence to follow on amendment of charge as per the provision in Section 216 of the Code. Provision in Section 221 and particularly Sub-section (2) of Section 221 of the Code provides that if the accused is charged with one offence and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he could have been charged under Sub- section (1), then he may be convicted for such offence even if no charge was framed. Provision has been made in the Code to frame charge with the dominant intention to give notice to the accused of the particulars of accusation and not to enlighten him with provision of law. Therefore, the above quoted provisions from Chapter-XVII of the Code clarify the legal obligation of the Court to intimate to the accused the substance of the accusation for providing proper opportunity to defend. Thus, misdescription of the Section alone is not sufficient to interfere with the order of conviction.