Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXXV: Irregular Proceedings
Section 464: Effect of omission to frame, or absence of, or error in, charge
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
A finding, sentence or order of a competent court is not invalid merely because no charge was framed, or because of an error, omission, irregularity or misjoinder in the charge, unless the appeal, confirmation or revision court finds it actually caused a failure of justice.
- If it did, the court can order a charge framed and the trial resumed from that point, or order a new trial on a proper charge.
- If no valid charge could be framed on the proved facts, it must quash the conviction.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) No finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
(2) If the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, is of opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned, it may,—
(a) in the case of an omission to frame a charge, order that a charge be framed, and that the trial be recommended from the point immediately after the framing of the charge;
(b) in the case of an error, omission or irregularity in the charge, direct a new trial to be had upon a charge framed in whatever manner it thinks fit:
Provided that if the Court is of opinion that the facts of the case are such that no valid charge could be preferred against the accused in respect of the facts proved, it shall quash the conviction.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 464
-
Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah & Ors.
Allegation against the respondent nos.1 and 2 that they raped a minor girl. It is admitted that they never committed the acts together and always acted separately. In light of the controversy involved in the instant…
-
Paranagouda and Another v. The State of
Whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with s. 34 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; whether the conviction of the…
- Soundarajan v. State Rep. by the Insp. of Police
- The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Subhash @ Pappu
- Rohtas & Anr. v. State of Haryana
- Thongam Tarun Singh v. The State of Manipur
- Mala Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- Kamil v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Birbal Choudhary@ Mukhiya Jee v. State of Bihar
- Suresh Chandra Jana v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
- Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha v. State of Haryana & Anr.
- Sushil Ansal v. State Through CBI
- Bhim Singh and Anr. v. State of Utiarakhand
- Union of India & Ors. v. Ex-Gnr Ajeet Singh
- Chinnam Kameswara Rao and Ors. v. State of Ap. Rep. by Home Secretary
- Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab
- Bhimanna v. State of Karnataka
- Prithipal Singh Etc v. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.
- Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar
- Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi v. State of U.P.
- Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Main Pal v. State of Haryana
- Vikas Chaudhary v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
- Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra
- Chandrawati v. Ramji Tiwari & Anr. Etc.
- Sanichar Sahni v. The State of Bihar
- Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Dinesh Seth v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
- Dumpala Chandra Reddy v. Nimakayala Balireddy and Ors.
- Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P.
- Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and Ors. v. State of U.P.
- Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab
- Kamalanantha and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.
- Sohan Lal @ Sohan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab
- Lallan Raj and Ors. v. State of Bihar
- State Through Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Sit Etc. v. Nalini and Ors. Etc. Etc.
- Kammari Brahmiah and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Ap .
- State of A.P. Etc. v. Thakkidiram Reddy and Ors. Etc.