Effect of errors

Effect of errors.-No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned a failure of justice.

Illustrations

1. (a) A is charged under section 242 of the Ranbir Penal Code, with "having been in possession of counterfeit coin, having known at the time when he became possessed thereof that such coin was counterfeit", the word "fraudulently" being omitted in the charge. Unless it appears that A was in fact misled by his omission, the error shall not be regarded as material.
2. (b) A is charged with cheating B, and the manner in which he cheated B is not set out in the charge, or is set out incorrectly. A defends himself, calls witnesses and gives his own account of the transaction. The Court may infer from this that the omission to set out the manner of the cheating is not material.
3. (c) A is charge with cheating B, and the manner in which he cheated B is not set out in the charge. There were many transactions between A and B, and A had not means of knowing to which of them the charge referred, and offered no defence. The Court may infer from such facts that the omission to set out the manner of the cheating was, in the case, a material error.
4. (d) A is charged with the murder of Khuda Baksh on the 21st January, 1882. In fact, the murdered person's name was Haider Baksh and the date of the murder was 20th January, 1882. A was never charged with any murder but one and had heard the inquiry before the Magistrate, which referred exclusively to the case of Haider Baksh. The Court may infer from these facts that A was not misled, and that the error in the charge was immaterial.
5. (e) A was charged with murdering Haider Baksh on the 20th January, 1882, and Khuda Badsh (who tried to arrest him for that murder) on the 21st January, 1882. When charged for the murder of Haider Baksh, he was tried for the murder of Khuda Baksh. The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses in the case of Haider Baksh. The Court may infer from this that A was misled and that the error was material. 1[x x x ]

²²⁶ Omitted